Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Formulated Gasoline
Formulated Gasoline
Formulated Gasoline
Conventional Gasoline
[Federal Register: February 16, 1994]
SUMMARY: Through the amended Clean Air Act of 1990, Congress mandated
that EPA promulgate new regulations requiring that gasoline sold in
certain areas be reformulated to reduce vehicle emissions of toxic and
ozone-forming compounds. This document finalizes the rules for the
certification and enforcement of reformulated gasoline and provisions
for unreformulated or conventional gasoline.
DATES: The regulations for the reformulated gasoline program are
effective on March 18, 1994. The incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of
the Federal Register as of March 18, 1994. The information collection
requirements contained in 40 CFR part 80 have not been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and are not effective until OMB
has approved them. EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register
following OMB approval of the information collection requirements.
Retail sale of reformulated gasoline will begin on January 1, 1995,
as will the provisions for the ``simple model'' certification, the
anti-dumping program for conventional gasoline, and the associated
enforcement procedures. (For all ensuing sections of this document, the
program's beginning date of January 1, 1995 refers only to the retail
sale of reformulated gasoline.) Certification of reformulated gasoline
by the ``complex model'' and compliance with the Phase II performance
standards, will begin January 1, 1998 and January 1, 2000,
respectively.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this FRM are contained in Public
Dockets A-92-01 and A-92-12, located at room M-1500, Waterside Mall
A list of ZIP files will be shown, all of which are related to the
reformulated gasoline rulemaking process. The six documents mentioned
above will be in the form of a ZIP file and can be identified by the
following titles: ``PREAMBLE.ZIP'' (preamble); ``RIAFINAL.ZIP'' (RIA);
``ENFORCE.ZIP'' (RCEP); ``EPAFINAL.ZIP'' (complex model);
``MODFINAL.ZIP'' (simple model); ``REGFINAL.ZIP'' (regulations). To
download these files, type the instructions below and transfer
according to the appropriate software on your computer:
<D>ownload, <P>rotocol, <E>xamine, <N>ew, <L>ist, or <Help Selection or
<CR> to exit: D filename.zip
You will be given a list of transfer protocols from which you must
choose one that matches with the terminal software on your own
computer. Then go into your own software and tell it to receive the
file using the same protocol. Programs and instructions for dearchiving
compressed files can be found via <S>ystems Utilities from
the top menu, under <A>rchivers/de-archivers.
I. Background
The purpose of the reformulated gasoline regulations is to improve
air quality by requiring that gasoline be reformulated to reduce motor
vehicle emissions of toxic and tropospheric ozone-forming compounds, as
prescribed by section 211(k)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act),
as amended. This section of the Act mandates that reformulated gasoline
be sold in the nine largest metropolitan areas with the most severe
summertime ozone levels and other ozone nonattainment areas that opt
into the program. It also prohibits conventional gasoline sold in the
rest of the country from becoming any more polluting than it was in
1990. This requirement ensures that refiners do not ``dump'' fuel
components that are restricted in reformulated gasoline and that cause
environmentally harmful emissions into conventional gasoline.
Section 211(k)(l) directs EPA to issue regulations that, beginning
in 1995, ``require the greatest reduction in emissions of ozone-forming
and toxic air pollutants (``toxics'') achievable through the
reformulation of conventional gasoline, taking into consideration the
cost of achieving such emission reductions, any non air-quality and
other air-quality related health and environmental impacts and energy
requirements.'' The Act mandates certain requirements for the
reformulated gasoline program. Section 211(k)(3) specifies that the
minimum requirement for reductions of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and toxics for 1995 through 1999, or Phase I of the reformulated
gasoline program, must require the more stringent of either a formula
fuel or an emission reductions performance standard, measured on a mass
basis, equal to 15 percent of baseline emissions. Baseline emissions
At the time of the February 26, 1993 proposal, EPA had a number of
concerns with respect to its legality, energy benefits, and
environmental neutrality. Nevertheless, we proposed the provisions for
public comment in the hope that these concerns could be overcome based
on new data and information developed in-house or received through
public comment. Since the time of the proposal these concerns have been
enhanced. Additional data and information has been developed which
indicates that energy benefits would be unlikely to occur as a result
of the proposal. While the production of much of the ethanol in the
country produces on the margin more energy and uses less petroleum than
went into its production, a recent study by the Department of Energy
(refer to DOE's comments on the proposal) indicates that the margin
disappears when ethanol is mixed with gasoline. The energy loss and
additional petroleum consumption necessary to reduce the volatility of
the blend to offset the volatility increase caused by the ethanol
causes the energy balance and petroleum balance to go negative. Since
the potential energy benefits were the basis in the proposal for
providing the incentives for renewable oxygenates, the justification
for the proposal no longer exists.
Additional data and information has also been developed which
indicates that VOC emissions would increase significantly under the
proposal. As discussed in section I of the RIA, the commingling effect
of mixing ethanol blends with non-ethanol blends in consumer's fuel
tanks, the effect of ethanol on the distillation curve of the blend,
and unrestricted early use of the complex model combined result in
roughly a 6-7.5% increase in gasoline vehicle VOC emissions even though
there is no increase in the average RVP of in-use gasoline. As a
result, the proposal would have sacrificed 40 to 50 percent of the VOC
control that is required under section 211(k) for reformulated gasoline
in exchange for incentives for what is likely to have been only a
marginal increase in the market share of ethanol in reformulated
gasoline and no energy benefits or cost savings.
As discussed in section I of the RIA, ethanol is not excluded from
competing in the reformulated gasoline market under the provisions of
the April 16, 1992 SNPRM. As a result of the economic advantage of
ethanol over other oxygenates, ethanol should maintain a significant
market share under the reformulated gasoline program even without the
renewable oxygenate incentives proposed in the February 16, 1993
proposal. As a result, the actual ethanol market share increase as a
result of the renewable oxygenate provisions would be expected to be
far less than the maximum of 30% for which incentives were provided.
Given the relatively small increase in ethanol demand as a result of
the renewable oxygenate provisions in exchange for such a large loss in
the environmental control of the reformulated gasoline program, there
does not appear to be any justification for promulgating these
provisions.
Furthermore, comments were received from virtually all parties,
including ethanol industry representatives, that the proposal was
unworkable and would significantly increase the cost of the
reformulated gasoline program. While EPA maintains that the program
would have provided an economic incentive for the use of renewable
oxygenates in reformulated gasoline up to a 30% market share, EPA
acknowledges that the proposal would have intruded into the efficient
operation of the marketplace, impacting the cost of the reformulated
gasoline program. As a result, after taking into account the cost, nonair
quality and environmental impacts, and energy impacts, EPA has
found itself with no choice but to back away from the renewable
oxygenate provisions of the February 26, 1993 proposal.
C. Provisions for the Final Rule
In lieu of the renewable oxygenate proposal, EPA investigated a
number of options aimed at making the program more workable by reducing
the fuel tracking, recordkeeping, and enforcement burden associated
with the proposal. While such options tended to make the program more
workable from the standpoint of the refining and fuel distribution
processes, they also tended to either reduce the assurance that the
environmental benefits of the program would be achieved in all areas
covered by the RFG program, or to place additional restrictions on the
flexibility contained in the proposal for blending ethanol into
gasoline. Given this and the other concerns with the proposal (cost,
lack of energy benefits, significant environmental loss, etc.), EPA did
not believe these options to be appropriate or justifiable either under
the provisions of section 211(k) of the Act. The reader is referred to
the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for a detailed discussion of the
renewable oxygenate program.
A number of commenters suggested alternative provisions (1.0 psi
RVP waiver for ethanol blends, inclusion of ozone reactivity in the
standard setting process, mandates for refiners to provide clear
gasoline blendstock for downstream blending with ethanol, etc.) to the
proposed renewable oxygenate program to allow ethanol to play a larger
role in the reformulated gasoline program. It was argued that without
such provisions ethanol would be excluded from the market entirely in
direct conflict with the intent of Congress in the CAA.
EPA, however, does not agree that ethanol is excluded from
competing in the reformulated gasoline marketplace under the provisions
of the April 16, 1992 proposal. In fact, as under the recently
implemented wintertime oxygenated fuels program, ethanol is expected to
significantly increase its market share under the reformulated gasoline
program, especially in Midwestern areas where ethanol enjoys State tax
\1\Lower RVP limits apply for fuels that comply under averaging.
RVP controls also apply from May 1 to May 31 for facilities upstream
of retail outlets. These issues are discussed elsewhere in this
proposal.
5. Section 211(k) of the Act requires control of VOC emissions during the
6. ``high ozone season.'' For the purposes of this rulemaking, the high
7. ozone season is defined to be June 1 through September 15. This period
8. covers the vast majority of days during which the national ambient air
9. quality standard for ozone is exceeded nationwide and is consistent
10. with the period covered by EPA's gasoline volatility control
11. requirements. All gasoline at service stations must thus comply with
12. the reformulated gasoline requirements during this period. Also in
13. keeping with the gasoline volatility control rulemaking the ``VOC
14. control Period'' for compliance with the reformulated gasoline
15. provisions upstream from the service station (necessary to ensure
16. complying fuel is available at the service stations during the high
17. ozone season) is May 1 through September 15.
18.
19. Baseline Gasoline
20.
21. The fuels to be used in determining baseline emissions are
22. unchanged from the February 26, 1993 proposal and are shown below.
23.
Table III-1.--Baseline Fuel Compositions
Summer
Winter
VOC on the basis of its low reactivity in keeping with past EPA
actions, but included all other VOCs including ethane. EPA further
proposed, however, that should the Agency modify the definition of VOC,
we might do so for the reformulated gasoline rulemaking as well. As
discussed in the February 26, 1993 proposal, EPA has also modified the
definition of VOC to exclude ethane in a separate Agency rulemaking (57
FR 3941). As a result, the performance of fuels meeting the VOC
emission requirements under the simple model are expressed on a nonmethane,
non-ethane basis. This change resulted in slight changes to
the simple model equations previously proposed, but the overall results
of the simple model are essentially unaffected.
4. Simple Model Baseline
The following table shows the baseline emissions under the simple
model which result from the assumptions discussed above. Since the
MOBILE model does not estimate toxics emissions, however, separate data
and information was necessary to determine their baseline emissions.
The toxics baseline was developed in essentially the same manner as
that proposed in the April 16, 1992 proposal. An explanation of this
derivation can be found in Section II of the RIA.
Table III-2.--Simple Model Baseline Emissions
Summer
-------------------------- Winter
Region 1 Region 2
53.2
52.1
55.5
ETBE..........................................
Ethanol.......................................
MTBE..........................................
TAME................................
16.81
11.82
13.16
16.33
16.67
11.65
13.01
16.15
F. Applicability (1995-7)
The Simple Model described in this section is effective beginning
January 1, 1995 with the beginning of the reformulated gasoline program
as a means by which fuel producers can certify that their fuel meets
the requirements for reformulated gasoline. The Complex Model described
in Section IV will not be required to be used for fuel certification
until January 1, 1998.
Until January 1, 1998, refiners who produce reformulated gasoline
will have a choice of certifying their gasoline by using either the
Simple Model or the Complex Model. EPA proposed three options for
establishing the performance standards under early, optional use of the
Complex Model. Under one option, if a refiner opts to utilize the
Complex Model before January 1, 1998 the reformulated gasoline can have
no worse VOC, NO<INF>X, or toxic emissions performance than would be
predicted by the Complex Model for a Simple-Model fuel (minimum 2.0
percent oxygen, maximum 1.0 percent benzene, and maximum RVP of 8.1 psi
in Class C areas and 7.2 psi in Class B areas) having that refiner's
average 1990 levels of sulfur, olefins, and T90 (E300). The second
option was a variation of the first, in that refiners producing
gasoline for use in only the southern reformulated gasoline areas (VOC
control region 1) could measure their fuel performance against the CAA
baseline gasoline as an alternative to their own 1990 refinery
baseline. The third option, proposed by EPA in February 1993, would
extend the second option to all reformulated gasoline areas.
The rationales for these options are discussed in detail in EPA's
proposals. Many of the comments were also received prior to the
proposals, and as such were addressed there. As a result, the reader is
referred back to the proposals for additional discussion. After
considering the comments, EPA has decided to promulgate the first
option. First, under this option each refiner will have to achieve the
same reductions, whether they use the simple model or the complex
model. The option to use either model increases refiner flexibility,
but will not change the emissions reductions required for a refiner
prior to mandatory use of the complex model in 1998. EPA believes that
the reductions required under the simple model are achievable
considering all relevant factors and will continue to be so under the
optional use of the complex model. In fact, the additional flexibility
of using the complex model would in some cases make them even more
reasonable.
Second, the other two options create an incentive for early use of
the complex model by those refiners who would then have a less
stringent performance standard than under the simple model. This would
produce on average an increase in overall emissions for reformulated
In order for the per-gallon minimums for VOC and NO<INF>X emissions
-------------------------------------Region 1 Region 2
Winter
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Nonexhaust VOC...................
860.48
769.10
0.00
Exhaust VOC......................
446.00
446.00
660.00
Total VOC........................
1306.48
1215.10
660.00
NO<INF>x..............................
660.00
660.00
750.00
Running loss benzene.............
4.92
4.46
0.00
Hot soak benzene.................
3.02
2.63
0.00
Diurnal benzene..................
1.30
1.13
0.00
Refueling benzene................
0.42
0.42
0.00
Nonexhaust toxics................
9.66
8.63
0.00
Exhaust benzene..................
26.10
26.10
37.57
Acetaldehyde.....................
2.19
2.19
3.57
Formaldehyde.....................
4.85
4.85
7.73
1,3-butadiene....................
4.31
4.31
7.27
POM..............................
1.50
1.50
2.21
Exhaust toxics...................
Total toxics.................
38.95
48.61
38.95
47.58
58.36
58.36
-------------------------------------Region 1 Region 2
Winter
328.53
294.15
0.00
84.11
80.97
0.00
93.34
63.62
0.00
53.33
53.33
0.00
Nonexhaust VOC...................
559.31
492.07
0.00
Exhaust VOC......................
907.00
907.00
1341.00
Total VOC....................
1306.48
1215.10
1341.00
NO<INF>X..............................
1340.00
1340.00
1540.00
Running loss benzene.............
3.75
3.36
0.00
Hot soak benzene.................
0.96
0.93
0.00
Diurnal benzene..................
0.97
0.66
0.00
Refueling benzene................
0.56
0.56
0.00
Nonexhaust toxics................
Exhaust benzene..................
Acetaldehyde.....................
Formaldehyde.....................
6.24
53.54
4.44
9.70
5.51
53.54
4.44
9.70
0.00
77.62
7.25
15.34
1,3-butadiene....................
POM..............................
9.38
3.04
9.38
3.04
15.84
4.50
Exhaust toxics...................
Total toxics.................
80.10
86.34
80.10
120.55
85.61
120.55
80.
81. In the February 1993 proposal, EPA indicated that it planned to
82. make several changes to the method used to develop the complex model.
83. As discussed in that proposal and in the RIA, fuels can be
84. characterized in terms of a number of different sets of fuel
85. parameters. EPA used the results of individual fuel studies and its
86. public workshops to select the set of fuel parameters used to model
87. exhaust emissions in its February 1993 proposal. At that time, the
88. Agency indicated that it might alter its choice of parameters to
89. represent gasoline distillation characteristics from a temperature
90. basis (using T50 and T90) to a percent evaporated basis (using E200 and
91. E300, the percentage of the fuel's volume that evaporates when heated
92. to 200 deg.F and 300 deg.F, respectively). For reasons outlined in the
93. February 1993 NPRM and section IV.A of the RIA, EPA has chosen to make
94. this change and has converted its exhaust emission models to a percent
95. evaporated basis since the NPRM was issued, removing the T50 and T90
96. terms from its models in the process. The Auto/Oil Heavy Hydrocarbon
97. and EPA Phase II Reformulated Gasoline Test Program studies have been
98. added to the complex model database. Finally, EPA has changed the
99. confidence level required to permit terms to remain in the model to 90
100. percent, in keeping with the approach used in developing the simple
101. model. The Agency was not able to determine the influence of the type
102. of aromatic compounds in fuels, specifically heavy aromatics, on
103. exhaust emissions, and hence such terms have not been included in the
104. complex model at this time.
105.
106. Because vehicles can have different emission control systems, the
107. Agency anticipated that fuel modifications would have different
108. emission effects on different types of cars. To account for these
109. differences, EPA's February 1993 proposal divided vehicles into two
110. ``emitter classes'' (normal and higher emitters) based on their exhaust
111. emission levels. EPA then subdivided vehicles in each emitter class
112. into ``technology groups'' based on the emission control technology
113. with which each vehicle was equipped. However, as discussed in the
114. NPRM, EPA was concerned that technology group distinctions among
higher
115. emitters might not be appropriate, since such vehicles' high level of
116. emissions indicated that their emission control systems were not
117. functioning properly. In addition, the limited quantity of data for
118. higher emitters made it difficult to identify genuine differences in
119. emissions response between higher emitters of different technology
120. groups. Many commenters expressed similar concerns. Hence the model
121. promulgated today does not divide higher emitters into technology group
122. categories but retains such distinctions when analyzing normal
123. emitters. In response to numerous comments, EPA attempted to reduce the
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169. emitters. In addition, some overall terms were retained for hierarchy
170. reasons despite low statistical significance. For example, a linear
171. term for a given fuel parameter (e.g., E300) might not be significant
172. while a squared term for the same parameter (e.g., E300\2\) might be
173. significant. Since the mathematical form of the squared terms includes
174. the corresponding linear effects, the linear term would be retained
175. regardless of significance to preserve the model's hierarchical
176. structure. The importance of hierarchy was emphasized by a number of
177. workshop participants and commenters, as discussed in the RIA. The
NPRM
178. model included separate terms for each technology group and emitter
179. class and hence did not include terms to represent the average effect
180. of a fuel parameter across all vehicles. The NPRM model also did not
181. incorporate hierarchy considerations.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
Fourth, outlying and overly influential data were dropped from the
database and the model was re-estimated based on the remaining data.
Outlying data consist of observations that differ from the average
observed effect by so large a margin that they are more likely to
represent observational error, reporting error, or other measurement
artifacts than genuine phenomena. Outlying data can obscure genuine
emissions effects. Influential data consist of observations that by
themselves materially affect the resulting model, i.e., the model would
differ materially if they were excluded. In a database the size of the
Complex Model database, individual data points should not have such
unusually large effects. Excluding outlying and influential
observations is standard statistical practice. The NPRM model did not
exclude either type of observation.
197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
205.
206.
207.
208.
209.
210.
211.
212.
213.
214.
215.
216.
217.
218.
219.
220.
221.
222.
223.
224.
225.
226.
227.
228.
229.
230.
231.
232.
233.
234.
235.
236.
237.
238.
239.
240.
241.
242.
243.
244.
245.
246.
247.
248.
249.
250.
251.
252.
253.
254.
255.
256.
257.
Exhaust Model
As was discussed in the April 1992 and February 1993 proposals, the
weight assigned to each technology group or emitter class for modeling
purposes was set equal to its contribution to in-use emissions for each
pollutant. The weight assigned to each emitter class was set equal to
its projected contribution to in-use emissions. The weighting factor
assigned to normal emitters was then broken down further by technology
The specific equations that comprise the complex model can be found
in section 80.45 of the regulations for this rule. Their derivation is
discussed in detail in Section IV.A of the RIA. The range of parameter
values for which these equations are valid is discussed in Section D
and in Section IV.D of the RIA. As discussed in Section V, refiners are
required to submit data to augment the model if they wish to certify
fuels with properties that fall outside this range as reformulated
gasolines.
C. Nonexhaust Model
Reformulated Conventional
fuel
Fuel
Fuel
Description:
Season........ Summer...... Summer...... Winter...... Winter
VOC Control 1........... 2........... 1........... 2
Region.
Fuel
Parameter:.
RVP, psi...... 7.1......... 8.0......... N/A......... N/A
Oxygen, wt%... 2.1......... 2.1......... 2.1......... 2.1
Benzene, vol%. 0.95........ 0.95........ 0.95........ 0.95
Aromatics,
27.5........ 26.3........ 27.5........ 26.3
vol%.
Olefins, vol%. 9.2......... 9.2......... 11.9........ 11.9
E200, %....... 41.......... 41.......... 50.......... 50
E300, %....... 83.......... 83.......... 83.......... 83
Sulfur, ppm... 339......... 339......... 338......... 338
Fuel
Fuel
Description:
Fuel
Toxics
1..............................................
2..............................................
3..............................................
4..............................................
5..............................................
6..............................................
7..............................................
8..............................................
7.92
5.35
0.33
0.80
8.64
6.09
3.55
4.01
51.42
23.93
N/A
0.00
51.42
23.93
N/A
N/A
36.57
17.11
0.33
0.80
36.82
17.38
3.56
4.01
1.46
1.28
-0.21
0.04
1.90
1.76
0.58
0.88
27.33
24.57
12.83
13.87
25.70
22.56
11.52
12.48
\1\Performance of summer fuels (#s 1, 2, 5, 6) given relative to that of Clean Air Act
summer baseline fuel.
Performance of winter fuels (#s 3, 4, 7, 8) given relative to that of the winter
baseline fuel defined in
Section III.
I. Phase I Performance Standards Under the Complex Model
All fuels produced during Phase I of the reformulated gasoline
program must meet the VOC, toxics, and NO<INF>X requirements of the
Act. Fuels certified using the complex model in Phase I must show
either no increase in NO<INF>X emissions from baseline levels on a pergallon
basis as discussed in the February 1993 proposal or a 1.5%
reduction from baseline levels on average as discussed in Section VII.
In addition, as discussed in Section III.E., such fuels must result in
either a 15% reduction in total toxics emissions from baseline levels
on a per-gallon basis or a 16.5% reduction in total toxics emissions
from baseline levels on average.
With regard to the VOC standards, EPA considers fuels produced to
meet the provisions of the simple model to be producible. Thus, as
discussed in the February 1993 proposal, EPA believes it feasible to
base the Phase I standards for VOC emissions on the performance of
fuels that meet the Simple Model requirements, provided that this
performance is more stringent than minimum performance required by the
Act. EPA considers the fuels whose VOC performances were evaluated in
Section IV.H to be representative of Simple Model fuels. Under the
reformulated gasoline program, VOC emissions are controlled only during
the high ozone season. For this reason, the VOC performance standard
has been determined by the performance of the Phase I summer fuels
presented in Section IV.H. Since these fuels achieve emissons
reductions that equal or exceed the minimum requirements set forth in
the Act, the VOC performance standard during Phase I for fuels
certified under the complex model has been based on the performance of
these fuels. Setting the VOC performance standards in 1998-1999 equal
to this VOC performance level, which EPA believes to be a reasonable
estimate of the average performance of fuels produced in 1995-1997,
preserves the integrity of the two-phase program specified by Congress
and is consistent with the Agreement in Principle signed in 1991.
The summer VOC performance of ``typical'' high ozone season simple
model reformulated gasolines according to the complex model is
presented in Table IV-6. In VOC Control Region 1, the simple model fuel
reduces VOC emissions by 36.6 percent for the MTBE-containing fuel
(Fuel 1) and 36.8 percent for the ethanol-containing fuel (Fuel 5).
2
Emission
--------------------------------------------------------------Average
Per gallon
Average
Per
gallon
VOC.............................................
-36.6
-35.1
-17.1
-15.6
Toxics..........................................
-16.5
-15.0
-16.5
-15.0
NO<INF>X.............................................
-1.5
0.0
-1.5
0.0
under the complex model during Phase I is set by the performance of the
corresponding simple model fuel when evaluated using the complex model.
The toxics performance standard is set at the statutory requirement of
a 15 percent reduction from baseline levels for per-gallon compliance
and a 16.5 percent reduction for compliance on average. Similarly, the
NO<INF>X performance standard under the complex model during Phase I
must satisfy the no NO<INF>x increase requirement on a per-gallon
basis, or meet a 1.5% reduction for compliance on average.
V. Augmenting the Models Through Testing
During the regulatory negotiation process, vehicle testing and
emission modeling procedures for certifying that a gasoline complies
with the NO<INF>X, toxics, and VOC requirements were discussed.
Emission models such as the simple model described in Section III and
the complex model described in Section IV offer several advantages over
testing to determine emission effects. First, models can better reflect
in-use emission effects since they can be based on the results of
multiple test programs. Second, individual test programs may be
intentionally or unintentionally biased due to vehicle selection, test
design, and analysis methods. Third, fuel compositions tend to vary due
in part to factors beyond the control of fuel suppliers such as
variations in crude oil compositions and the inherent variability of
refining processes. As a result, without one or more modeling options,
each batch of fuel would have to be tested to ascertain its emission
performance. Such levels of testing are neither desirable (because of
the potential for intentional or unintentional bias in vehicle test
programs) nor practical (because of the time and expense involved in
vehicle testing). Fourth, models make more efficient use of scarce and
expensive emission effects data than is possible otherwise. For these
reasons, EPA believes that the modeling options outlined above are
necessary for the reformulated gasoline program to achieve its
environmental objectives and to minimize the costs of the program.
These emission models, however, reflect currently-available
information and hence do not allow refiners to take advantage of
emission benefits derived from new fuel additives or changes in fuel
parameters not contained in the models. To allow for fuel technology
development and innovation, the Agency also believes that testing has a
role in certification as a means of supplementing the models. This
section contains a detailed discussion of the provisions EPA is
promulgating regarding the conditions under which testing is permitted,
the manner in which test results can be used to supplement the models,
and the minimum requirements for vehicle testing programs. As was first
outlined in the February 1993 NPRM, the vehicle testing process
described in this section has undergone significant changes since it
was first proposed in the April 1992 SNPRM. These changes have been
made in response to changes in EPA's approach to modeling the
86. not necessary, and identify those pollutants for which additional
87. testing may be warranted. For example, a petition might note that
88. reducing the concentration of a specific high molecular weight aromatic
89. decreased VOC emissions even though the overall concentration of
90. similar aromatics remained unchanged. The petitioner may be able to
91. justify a reduced need for toxics measurement based on the results of
92. other studies which show that toxics are proportional to total
93. aromatics rather than to individual aromatics species. In exchange,
94. additional testing may be justified for VOC emissions to enable a
95. greater degree of statistical confidence in the test results. As a
96. result, the fuel supplier may be able to present EPA with sufficient
97. justification to warrant increased testing for VOC emissions and
98. decreased testing for toxics emissions.
99.
100. Exhaust and Nonexhaust Testing
101. VOC and air toxics emissions occur in both exhaust and nonexhaust
102. emissions. However, EPA believes that the relationship between fuel
103. characteristics and nonexhaust emissions is known with greater
104. certainty and precision than the relationship between fuel
105. characteristics and exhaust emissions. Nonexhaust emissions are a much
106. simpler phenomenon to model than exhaust emissions. Nonexhaust
107. emissions are driven primarily by well-understood principles of
108. physical chemistry and are modified by devices such as charcoal
109. canisters that are relatively easily modeled. Exhaust emissions, by
110. contrast, involve combustion and catalysis reactions that are not as
111. well understood theoretically and are much more difficult to model. In
112. addition, exhaust emissions are estimated directly from the Federal
113. Test Procedure (FTP) utilizing the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule,
114. while nonexhaust emissions are estimated from both FTP and non-FTP
test
115. cycles in a complex process. Finally, data on nonexhaust emissions is
116. much more extensive and internally consistent than data for exhaust
117. emissions. For these reasons, EPA is restricting testing to augment the
118. model to exhaust emission testing. Vehicle testing of nonexhaust
119. emissions will not be accepted by EPA as the basis for augmentations to
120. the nonexhaust emission model promulgated in today's rulemaking.
121. EPA reserves the right to revise the nonexhaust emission model in
122. the future to reflect new data acquired by the Agency, with such
123. revisions taking effect after the start of Phase II of the program. In
124. particular, either a new MOBILE model or ongoing research aimed at
125. modeling nonexhaust emissions as a function of true vapor pressure over
126. a range of temperatures may provide the basis for a revised nonexhaust
127. model. The nonexhaust complex model being promulgated today relies on
128. the Reid vapor pressure (RVP) to characterize fuels' nonexhaust
129. emission characteristics. However, RVP is measured at a fixed fuel
130. temperature (100 deg.F), while nonexhaust emissions occur over a wide
131. range of fuel temperatures (80 deg.F to 130 deg.F). Since different
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
oxygenates alter the relationship between RVP and true vapor pressure
at a given temperature to different extents, EPA believes that a model
based on true vapor pressure would be more accurate for fuels
containing oxygenates than a model based solely on RVP.
By permitting nonexhaust emissions from a given fuel to be
estimated only from models and exhaust emissions to be estimated based
in part on vehicle testing, EPA believes that the accuracy of fuel
emission estimates will be enhanced. EPA also believes that this
restriction will focus testing resources on those emission effects
which the model predicts with the least degree of certainty (i.e.,
exhaust emissions), thereby improving the degree of certainty of
emission predictions over the long run.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
205.
206.
207.
208.
209.
Test Fuels
The Agency has three major goals that must be satisfied before
accepting an augmentation to the complex model. First, the augmentation
must provide proper credit for fuel modifications. Second, the
augmentation must account for dilution effects properly. Third, the
augmentation must account for interactive effects between the parameter
being tested and other fuel parameters properly. EPA believes that
these three goals cannot be met without specifying at least some of the
characteristics of fuels to be included in a test program. The
remainder of this section describes the basic characteristics of the
fuels required as part of a vehicle test program.
a. Fuels required to extend the range of existing complex model
parameters. Three ``extension fuels'' must be included in test programs
intended to extend the range of the complex model for a given parameter
to a more extreme level. Extension fuel #1 would contain the more
extreme level of the parameter being extended in order to determine the
parameter's effects on emissions at this more extreme level. Extension
fuel #2 would contain the parameter being extended at levels at or near
its current lower limit in the model. Extension fuel #3 would contain
the parameter being extended at levels at or near its current upper
limit in the model. These latter two fuels are necessary in order to
estimate the size and significance of squared terms involving the
parameter being extended. For all three fuels, the levels of other
complex model parameters are to be set at the levels specified in Table
V.2, which the Agency believes are representative of levels that will
be found in typical reformulated fuels. In addition, all three fuels
must be blended from representative refinery streams to the extent
practicable. The three extension fuels must meet the requirements
presented in Tables V.1 and V.2 to within the blending tolerances
specified in Table V.4.
210.
211.
212.
213.
214.
215.
216.
217.
218.
219.
220.
221.
Extension Extension
fuel #
fuel #2
80
fuel #3
450
0.5
1.5
6.7
8.0
38
61
78
92
20
45
3.0
18
1.7
87.5
2.7
87.5
Table V.2.--Levels for Fuel Parameters Other Than Those Being Extended
Extension Extension Extension
Fuel property
fuel #1
fuel #2
fuel #3
Sulfur, ppm............................
Benzene, vol%..........................
RVP, psi...............................
E200, %................................
E300, %................................
Aromatics, vol%........................
Olefins, vol%..........................
Oxygen, wt%............................
Octane, R+M/2.................
150
1.0
7.5
50
85
25
9.0
2.0
87.5
150
150
1.0
1.0
7.5
7.5
50
50
85
85
25
25
9.0
9.0
2.0
2.0
87.5
87.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------2
3
4
5
6
7
Sulfur, ppm...............................
500
Benzene, vol%.............................
1.3
RVP, psi..................................
E200, %...................................
E300, %...................................
Aromatics, vol%...........................
45
Olefins, vol%.............................
Oxygen, wt%...............................
1.5
150
1.0
7.5
50
85
27
9.0
2.1
150
1.0
7.5
50
85
27
9.0
2.1
150
1.0
7.5
50
85
27
9.0
2.1
35
0.5
6.5
62
92
20
2.0
2.7
35
0.5
6.5
62
92
20
2.0
2.7
500
1.3
8.1
37
79
45
18
1.5
8.1
37
79
18
Octane, (R+M)/2...........................
87
New Parameter\1\..........................
B
87
C
87
C+B
87
B
87
C
87
B
87
C
Fuel parameter
Blending
tolerance
psi.
E200 level........................................... <plus-minus>2 %.
E300 level........................................... <plus-minus>4 %.
Oxygenate content.................................... <plus-minus>1.0
vol %.
Aromatics content.................................... <plus-minus>2.7
vol %.
Olefins content...................................... <plus-minus>2.5
vol %.
Saturates content.................................... <plus-minus>2.0
vol %.
Octane............................................... <plus-minus>0.5.
Candidate parameter.................................. To be determined
as part of the
augmentation
process.
Parameter
Measurement
tolerance (95
percent confidence
interval)
Emitter group
Fraction
Emission
of infraction
use ----------------fleet VOCs
NO<INF>X
0.444
0.738
eq>0.82 g/mi)..............................
0.262
0.556
0.262
An option had been proposed for comment which would not have
separated the test fleet into separate emitter groups under the
assumption that they may not respond differently to fuels. However,
EPA's analysis of the complex model database and the complex model
itself indicates that this assumption is invalid. Hence EPA has
determined that the test fleet must contain vehicles from both emitter
groups.
Assembling a test fleet with the specified emission performance
distribution requires vehicles to be obtained with the desired emission
performance. For the reformulated gasoline program, such vehicles must
be obtained by randomly selecting vehicles with the desired emission
performance from the in-use fleet and testing those vehicles in their
as-received condition. This method helps assure that the vehicles
selected for testing have emission control problems that are
representative of in-use emission problems. EPA had considered allowing
normal emitting vehicles with intentionally-disabled emission control
systems to serve as higher emitting vehicles, but no suitable
disablement scheme has been identified and evidence indicating that
disabled vehicles would have emission performance representative of inuse
higher emitters has not been found. For these reasons, EPA will not
permit higher emitting vehicles to be created by intentionally
disabling normal emitting vehicles.
Test vehicles' emission performance will need to be pre-screened to
place them in the appropriate emitter group and to assure the proper
emissions distribution within the test fleet. Such prescreening tests
must be conducted using EPA vehicle certification fuel (Indolene) over
the Federal Test Procedure since these were the conditions which were
used to generate the data for the in-use emission distribution.
Prescreening tests can also be performed using the Clean Air Act
baseline gasoline and/or the I/M 240 test procedure. Results from such
tests can be correlated with FTP test results with Indolene (as
outlined in section 80.62 of the accompanying regulations).
(2) Technology Groups. As discussed in Section IV, the development
of the complex model revealed that the emissions effect of fuel
modifications in normal emitting vehicles varied among the engine and
exhaust system technologies present in 1990 model year vehicles. Hence
EPA has concluded that the normal emitter test fleet must have a
technology distribution that is representative of the technology
distribution present in the 1990 model year fleet. The required
Tech.
Veh. #
Manufacturer
1..........................
2..........................
3..........................
4..........................
5..........................
6..........................
7..........................
8..........................
9..........................
Fuel system
Multi.......
Multi.......
TBI.........
Multi.......
Multi.......
Multi.......
TBI.........
Multi.......
TBI.........
Catalyst
3W
3W
3W
3W+OX
3W
3W
3W
3W+OX
3W+OX
Air injection
EGR
No Air........ EGR...........
No Air........ No EGR........
No Air........ EGR...........
Air........... EGR...........
No Air........ EGR...........
No Air........ No EGR........
No Air........ EGR...........
Air........... EGR...........
Air........... EGR...........
group
1 GM.
2 Ford.
3 GM.
4 Ford.
1 Honda.
2 GM.
3 Chrysler.
4 GM.
7 Chrysler.
10.........................
11.........................
12.........................
13.........................
14.........................
15.........................
16.........................
17.........................
18.........................
19.........................
20.........................
Multi....... 3W
Multi....... 3W
Multi....... 3W
Carb........ 3W+OX
TBI......... 3W
Multi....... 3W+OX
Multi....... 3W
Multi....... 3W
TBI......... 3W
Multi....... 3W+OX
Multi....... 3W
Air........... EGR...........
5 Toyota.
No Air........ EGR...........
1 Ford.
No Air........ No EGR........
2 Chrysler.
Air........... EGR...........
9 Toyota.
No Air........ EGR...........
3 Ford.
Air........... EGR...........
4 GM.
No Air........ EGR...........
1 Toyota.
No Air........ No EGR........
2 Mazda.
No Air........ EGR...........
3 GM.
Air........... EGR...........
4 Ford.
No Air........ EGR...........
1 Nissan.
Tech. group
Fuel system
Catalyst
Air injection
EGR
1...........................................
2...........................................
3...........................................
4...........................................
5...........................................
6...........................................
7...........................................
8...........................................
9...........................................
Multi......... 3W
Multi......... 3W
TBI........... 3W
Multi......... 3W+OX
Multi......... 3W
TBI........... 3W
TBI........... 3W+OX
TBI........... 3W
Carb.......... 3W+OX
No Air.......... EGR
No Air.......... No EGR
No Air.......... EGR
Air............. EGR
Air............. EGR
Air............. EGR
Air............. EGR
No Air.......... No EGR
Air............. EGR
3W = 3-Way catalyst
3W+OX = 3-Way catalyst plus an oxidation catalyst
Air Injection:
Air = Air injection
No Air = No air injection
EGR:
EGR = Exhaust gas recirculation
No EGR = No exhaust gas recirculation
Vehicles must be added to the normal emitter sub-fleet in the order
in which they appear in the table. If more than 20 vehicles are
included in the normal emitter sub-fleet, then the additional vehicles
must be selected starting over with vehicle number one in Table V.7.
(3) Number of Test Vehicles. Exhaust emissions are subject to
considerable variability due to the complexity of combustion chemistry,
engine behavior, and emission control. As a result, substantial
statistical uncertainty typically exists in exhaust emission reduction
estimates based on a single test program. To reduce this uncertainty,
an adequate number of vehicles must be tested for their exhaust
emissions. In order to keep statistical uncertainty reasonably low
while at the same time limit the test fleet size to reasonable levels,
the test fleet for exhaust emissions must consist of a minimum of 20
vehicles. To maintain adequate statistical confidence in test results,
however, the distribution of the test fleet among the emitter groups
must also be defined so as to minimize statistical uncertainty. As
discussed in the April 16, 1992 proposal, differences in VOC, NO<INF>X
and toxics emission distributions for in-use vehicles prevents
optimization of the size of the emitter groups for all three pollutants
simultaneously. EPA is basing the number of vehicles in each emitter
group on their VOC emission performance, based on the reasons discussed
in the April 16, 1992 proposal and on the use of VOC emission
performance to define emitter groups.
A. Introduction
The Clean Air Act (the Act), as amended in November 1990,
establishes a more stringent minimum level of control of ozone-forming
VOCs and air toxics emissions from reformulated gasoline beginning in
the year 2000 than is required prior to that date. For the first five
years of the reformulated gasoline program (Phase I; January 1, 1995
through December 1999), Congress established a minimum requirement of
15% reduction of ozone forming VOCs and toxic air pollutants [CA
section 211(k)(3)(B)].<SUP>6 Starting with January 1, 2000 (Phase II),
the 15% minimum required reductions are increased to 25%, with the
provision that EPA may increase or decrease this level based on
technological feasibility, considering cost, but may not decrease it
below 20% [CA section 211(k)(3)(B)]. The restriction on increases in
NO<INF>X emissions continues to apply during Phase II of the program.
1. Statutory Requirements
2.
Section 211(k)(1) requires that reformulated gasoline achieve the
3. greatest reductions possible in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
4. toxics emissions, ``taking into consideration the cost of achieving
5. such emission reductions, any nonair-quality and other air-quality
6. related health and environmental impacts and energy requirements.
7. Specifically, section 211(k)(3)(B) of the Act requires that, in the
8. year 2000 and beyond, ``aggregate emissions of ozone-forming volatile
9. organic compounds from baseline vehicles<SUP>8 when using reformulated
10. gasoline shall be 25 percent below the aggregate emissions of ozone
11. forming volatile organic compounds from such vehicles when using
12. baseline gasoline<SUP>9.'' Similarly, a 25% reduction in emissions of
13. toxic air pollutants is required. The Act also specifies that the
14. Administrator may adjust the 25 percent reduction level to provide for
15. lesser or greater reductions based on technological feasibility, giving
16. consideration to the cost of achieving such reductions. In no case can
17. the required reduction be less than 20 percent. The Act further
18. provides that emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO<INF>X) cannot
19. increase as a result of the use of reformulated gasoline. These VOC and
20. toxics reductions and NO<INF>X limit are known as the Phase II
21. reformulated gasoline standards.
22.
23.
24.
\8\According to section 211(k)(10)(A) of the Act, ``baseline
vehicle'' means representative model year 1990 vehicles.
\9\The formulation for summertime baseline gasoline is defined
in section 211(k)(10)(B) of the Act. See further discussion of
baseline emissions in section IV.
EPA's analysis showed that fuels meeting the proposed VOC and
toxics standards were expected to show no increase in NO<INF>X
emissions, and in fact would likely achieve some reduction in NO<INF>X.
Based on the expected benefits of NO<INF>X reduction, and considering
various other factors, EPA also proposed NO<INF>X emissions reduction
standards for Phase II reformulated gasoline based on the authority of
section 211(c)(1)(A) of the Act. The proposed NO<INF>X standards ranged
from 0 to 14.8 percent reduction for VOC control region 1 (southern
areas) and 0 to 15.4 percent reduction for VOC control region 2
(northern areas) [58 FR 17178-9 (April 1, 1993)]. Again, the NO<INF>X
emissions performance of a fuel would be determined using the proposed
complex model. The range of proposed standards was based, in part, on
different levels of potentially acceptable cost-effectiveness as well
as whether the cost-effectiveness was calculated based on reductions in
NO<INF>X emissions alone or on the combined reduction in VOC and
NO<INF>X emissions.
EPA proposed alternative VOC standards that would apply depending
on whether EPA adopted a NO<INF>X reduction standard. These were based
on changes in the cost-effectiveness analysis from combined VOC plus
NO<INF>X emissions reductions. As explained in the proposal, measures
taken to achieve the NO<INF>X reductions under this option would result
in VOC emission reductions incremental to those obtained under the
proposed VOC only standards, which were based solely on the cost per
ton of VOC reduced. These additional VOC emission reductions obtained
through a combined VOC plus NO<INF>X standard presented the option of
setting a standard for larger VOC reductions. EPA analyzed the costeffectiveness
of a more stringent VOC standard in connection with a
NO<INF>X standard, and proposed a range of values depending on the
target cost-effectiveness level: for southern areas, 29.7-40.2 percent
based on an 8.7 psi baseline RVP (20.7-33.8 percent reduction based on
a 7.8 psi baseline RVP); for northern areas, 26.7-37.3 percent
reduction.
In analyzing potential VOC and NO<INF>X reduction requirements, EPA
looked at two potential cost-effectiveness targets: $5,000/ton and
2. Energy Impacts
Production of Phase II reformulated gasoline subject to performance
standards for VOC, NO<INF>X, and toxics will require an increase in the
amount of energy used at the refinery. An estimate of the energy used
depends on many factors, including how the energy balance is evaluated,
the type and source of oxygenate, the refinery configuration, and the
reformulation approach. Determining an exact energy increase associated
with reformulated gasoline production (on the basis of a constant level
of gasoline energy produced) is difficult.
As later sections of this document will show, the standards for VOC
and NO<INF>x reduction promulgated today will likely be met largely
through reductions in the sulfur content and Reid vapor pressure (RVP)
of the fuel. The process used to remove sulfur from gasoline,
hydrodesulfurization, is an energy intensive process; mainly due to the
need for and consumption of hydrogen. The energy impact will depend on
the sulfur level of the crude used by the refinery and the level of
sulfur control necessary for that refinery to meet the standards.
Reducing the RVP of the fuel requires removal of the lighter compounds
in the fuel, also an energy consuming process. Overall, it is expected
that the energy consumption by refineries in producing Phase II
reformulated gasoline will increase slightly (perhaps a couple percent)
over the level of energy used to make Phase I RFG, but the magnitude of
this increase is difficult to measure due to the many variables
involved.
3. Technological Feasibility
EPA also considered the technological feasibility of producing
fuels to meet the Phase II standards. EPA believes that the refinery
modeling results (from which the fuel parameter control costs were
estimated) indicated that it is technologically feasible to make the
fuel parameter changes that were analyzed in developing the standards.
The refinery models utilize only well-developed, demonstrated,
commercially available technologies, and are designed to only model
fuels within the limits of these technologies.<SUP>15 Given the cost
incentives created by this rulemaking, in all likelihood new
technologies will be developed between now and the year 2000 which will
reduce the costs for certain types of fuel parameter changes. Thus, EPA
believes that the determination of fuel parameter control costs using
the results of the existing refinery models is reasonable, that the
costs generated are perhaps conservative, and that the technological
feasibility of producing such emission-reducing fuels is justifiable.
This position was supported by many of the comments received. While
other commenters questioned the costs used in developing the proposal
(as discussed in subsection 4.b), no comments questioned the
technological feasibility of these refinery configurations.
Because the standards promulgated today will not take effect until
the year 2000, and because all the processes needed to produce
complying fuels are already commercially available, EPA does not
believe that lead time will be an issue in achieving the required
emissions reductions.
4. Fuel Safety and Driveability
EPA evaluated safety concerns associated with the use of low RVP
fuels and found no significant negative impacts, as discussed in the
RIA. Comments also raised concerns about driveability problems arising
from the use of low RVP fuels. They raised concerns that EPA's analysis
in the proposal did not address spring months (the transition time to
the VOC control period), September RVP fuel sold in October, and low
RVP gasoline sold in low temperature areas near nonattainment areas.
While neither EPA nor any other organization conducted driveability
testing at low ambient summer temperatures, EPA has looked at the
actual vapor pressure of fuels currently in production, as documented
in the draft RIA.<SUP>16 Based upon a comparison of actual vapor
pressures, EPA believes that 6.5 psi RVP fuel in the summer should have
similar driveability to current winter fuels. At this time EPA believes
there should be no significant driveability problems with gasoline at
an RVP level down to 6.5 psi. Until such time as data can be gathered
to more fully evaluate the driveability impacts of low RVP fuels, EPA
believes that 6.5 psi may present a practical lower limit below which
the existence of adverse driveability impacts is unknown. Discussions
with representatives of both the oil and automotive industries
reflected a similar uneasiness in going below 6.5 psi RVP given the
lack of data at lower levels. However, the standards for Phase II RFG
are performance based standards. As a result, flexibility exists for
refiners to meet the Phase II standards, without reducing the RVP of
the gasoline below 6.5 psi.
Many comments were received on the costs used in the proposal. Some
of these comments, and EPA's response, are summarized here, while the
RIA contains a complete discussion and analysis of the comments
received. Several commenters questioned the appropriateness of using
independent refinery models to generate costs for control of individual
parameters. In addition, they questioned the aggregation of results
from regional models to generate national average costs, and
recommended instead using a model from the region likely to realize the
highest costs for producing reformulated gasoline (PADD 1). While using
regional models to estimate national average costs requires an
acknowledgment of the inherent limitations in such models, EPA believes
that it is appropriate to use them for the purpose of determining the
costs to produce reformulated gasoline. The limitations and assumptions
made in using the refinery models and the results of this analysis are
discussed in detail in the RIA.
standards.
Upon review of the costs of other VOC and NO<INF>X control programs
(see subsections C.1 and C.2 below), EPA believes that a costeffectiveness
benchmark of $10,000/ton is too high at this point in
time and that a cost-effectiveness of approximately $5,000/ton is more
appropriate for the Phase II VOC standard and the accompanying NO<INF>X
standard. The standards presented today fall within this guideline.
The cost-effectiveness of toxics control was similarly determined
as the ratio of the total incremental cost for the incremental
reduction in emissions to the total tons of toxics reduced. The costeffectiveness
of toxics control was also calculated as the ratio of
total costs to incremental reductions in cancer incidences. EPA's
proposal did not include any benchmark limits for the costeffectiveness
of toxics control, but did acknowledge that in most cases
control above the statutory minimum was not cost-effective. This
conclusion was supported by the comments received, and by the final
analysis presented here.
C. Phase II Reformulated Gasoline Standards and NO<INF>X Standards for
Reformulated Gasoline
The following sections explain the development of the VOC standards
for Phase II reformulated gasoline, and the NO<INF>X standards EPA is
setting for gasoline sold in RFG areas after 1999. The final standards
are summarized in subsection 3 below.
14.
Table VI-1.--Fuel Parameter Control Costs and VOC Reductions\1\
Incremental
Fuel parameter
cost ( Cumulative Incremental Incremental
control
cents/gal) reduction cost-eff. to phase I
(%)
($/ton)
($/ton)
0.18
0.08
22.9
25.5
400
600
400
400
ppm............
Sulfur to 160
0.12
\2\26.1
3,700
600
ppm............
Sulfur to 138
0.56
27.1
11,000
1,300
ppm............
Sulfur to 100
0.24
27.4
19,000
1,600
ppm............
Olefins to 8.0
0.52
27.8
24,000
2,300
vol%...........
Aromatics to 20
0.78
26.2
(-)
vol%...........
Oxygen to 2.7
2.01
27.8
24,000
6,000
vol%...........
Olefins to 5.0
0.61
28.2
28,000
6,600
vol%...........
2.77
27.4
E300 to 88%.....
0.35
27.4
E300 to 91%.....
2.01
27.5
3,700
(-)
11,000
48,000
11,000
198,000
14,000
E200 to 44%.....
E200 to 47%.....
E200 to 50%.....
0.38
1.32
2.97
27.7
28.4
29.0
37,000
36,000
96,000
14,000
15,000
18,000
cited above, other EPA work in ambient ozone analysis, and the
authority granted EPA under section 211(c), EPA proposed setting a
NO<INF>X emission reduction standard in connection with the Phase II
standards to further reduce ozone formation during the high ozone
season.
context, the first major point to consider is that EPA has already
imposed more stringent NO<INF>X control standards on motor vehicles.
The Tier 1 standards for light-duty motor vehicles and trucks require
reductions in light-duty motor vehicle NO<INF>X emissions starting with
model year 1994, with a percentage phase-in of the more stringent Tier
1 standards until they apply to all new model year 1996 and later
light-duty vehicles and trucks. These vehicles are also required to
meet in-use standards.<SUP>32 For heavy-duty vehicles, EPA recently
reduced the NO<INF>X standard to 4 g/bhp-hr, starting with model year
1998 [58 FR 15781, March 24, 1993]
While these motor vehicle and motor vehicle engine controls are
expected to reduce mobile source emissions of NO<INF>X, this result is
limited by certain basic facts. First, the standards only apply to new
motor vehicles and engines. It will therefore take several years after
the first model year of the standards before vehicles and engines
certified to these standards will make up a significant portion of the
motor vehicle fleet.<SUP>33 In addition, it is expected that emissions
reductions based on the reduction in the NO<INF>X standard will be
offset to a significant extent by an increase, over time, in total
vehicle miles travelled.
Phase I:
RVP: 8.0 psi,
Oxygen: 2.1wt
percent,
Benzene: 0.95
percent.........
RVP to 6.7 psi... ...........
Sulfur to 250 ppm
Sulfur to 160 ppm
Sulfur to 138 ppm
0.12
0.56
0.24
0.4
2.4
5.8
6.8
1,300
3,700
5,200
3,200
3,500
3,700
0.52
8.7
6,200
4,200
vol percent.....
Aromatics to 20
0.78
10.8
8,000
5,000
vol percent.....
Oxygen to 2.7 vol
2.01
11.9
40,000
8,200
percent.........
Olefins to 5.0
vol percent.....
E300 to 88
0.61
2.77
12.5
14.1
25,000
8,900
37,000
12,000
percent.........
E300 to 91
0.35
14.1
(-)
13,000
percent.........
E200 to 44
2.01
14.2
820,000
percent.........
E200 to 47
0.38
13.9
(-)
17,000
percent.........
E200 to 50
1.32
13.7
(-)
19,000
percent.........
2.97
13.5
(-)
24,000
16,000
VOC
Controlled emission
VOC
control control
region 1 region 2
VOC:
Per gallon.................................... \1\27.5
Averaging.....................................
29.0
Minimum.......................................
25.0
NO<INF>X:
Per gallon....................................
Averaging.....................................
Minimum.......................................
5.5
6.8
3.0
25.9
27.4
23.4
5.5
6.8
3.0
EPA determined that setting only a 25% reduction VOC standard (with
a requirement of no NO<INF>X increase) would provide minimal NO<INF>X
reductions and marginal VOC benefits to southern (VOC Control Region 1)
areas which will already use lower RVP fuel than northern areas under
Phase I. A higher VOC standard selected based on a cost-effectiveness
benchmark of about $5,000/ton would get somewhat greater NO<INF>X
reductions and some additional VOC reductions in southern areas.
EPA has set the VOC standard based on a level of reduction that
would allow flexibility to refiners and would not be too economically
burdensome. Since a NO<INF>X standard is being set concurrently, EPA
set the VOC standard based on a slightly more relaxed RVP than might
have been used if only a VOC standard were implemented, as discussed
above in subsection a. One comment on the proposal strongly opposed
lessening the maximum achievable level of VOC reduction to achieve
NO<INF>X reductions. As discussed above, however, roughly the same
level of VOC reduction is being achieved with both a NO<INF>X standard
and a VOC standard (basing the standard on a fuel with 138 ppm sulfur
and an RVP of 6.7 psi) as would be achieved if only VOC control were
required (basing the standard on a fuel RVP of 6.5 psi and a sulfur
level of 250 ppm).
The final option proposed by EPA was to set a combined VOC and
NO<INF>X standard and allow refiners flexibility in controlling
emissions of either. As discussed in subsection C.2 above, EPA believes
it is important to achieve both VOC and NO<INF>X control. VOC control
the aromatics value necessary to meet the simple model toxics standard
using these values for benzene, RVP and oxygen; the refinery or
importer individual baseline values for E-300, sulfur, and olefins; and
the statutory summertime or wintertime baseline value for E-200.
The percent reductions in VOC, toxics, and NO<INF>X emissions
determined using the above fuel in the Phase I complex model are the
reformulated gasoline standards for a refinery or importer electing
early use of the complex model.
Beginning in 1998, the Phase I reformulated gasoline VOC, toxics,
and NO<INF>X standards for a refinery or importer are as specified in
section 80.41 (c) and (d). As a result of the individual refinery or
importer baselines under complex model early use, gasoline that is
produced under this option at any specific refinery or imported by any
specific importer, may not be fungibly mixed with gasoline that is
produced at another refinery or imported by another importer. This
segregation of early use complex model gasolines, and other segregation
requirements, are discussed more fully below.
Refiners and importers may elect to meet certain reformulated
gasoline standards either on a per-gallon basis or on average. This
election, which must be made separately for each parameter and
separately for each calendar year, applies to all gasoline produced at
a refinery by a refiner, or imported by an importer, during a calendar
year. Refiners and importers cannot meet the standard for any single
parameter on a per-gallon basis for certain batches and on average for
other batches during any calendar year.
A refiner or importer that opts for compliance on average must also
meet requirements for gasoline quality surveys. Standards that may be
met on average are RVP, oxygen, and benzene, and VOC, toxics, and
NO<INF>X emissions performance.
The purpose of the gasoline quality surveys is to ensure, for
example, that RVP averaging by refiners or importers does not result in
a covered area receiving reformulated gasoline that, on average over
the covered area, has a higher RVP than would occur without such
refiner or importer averaging. This applies for each parameter subject
to refiner or importer averaging. In the event a gasoline quality
survey reveals that the gasoline being used in a covered area does not
meet the per-gallon standard for any regulated parameter, the pergallon
maximum or minimum standard for that parameter is made more
rigorous, and except in the case of oxygen the standard for average
compliance is made more rigorous. With certain limited exceptions,
these adjusted standards apply to all gasoline produced at each
refinery that supplied the covered area with the failed survey during
the year of the survey failure, or during any year the adjusted
The final rule also includes provisions that regulate the manner in
which oxygenates may be added downstream of the refinery or import
facility within the reformulated gasoline program. Oxygenate may only
be added to specially formulated reformulated gasoline blendstock
intended for such downstream oxygenate blending (or ``RBOB''). If
oxygenate were added to reformulated gasoline not specially formulated,
in most cases the resulting gasoline would not meet the reformulated
gasoline standards. Refiners and importers of RBOB are required to
include in the RBOB product transfer documents the type and amount, or
range of types and amounts, of oxygenate that may be blended with each
particular RBOB. RBOB must be segregated from reformulated gasoline,
and from other RBOB having different oxygenate requirements, to the
point of oxygenate blending. Distributors may only dispense RBOB to
registered oxygenate blenders. Oxygenate blenders may only blend the
specified type and amount of oxygenate with any RBOB, and must meet the
standard for oxygen for all RBOB dispensed to them.
Refiners and importers are required to meet the reformulated
gasoline standards for RBOB for all parameters other than oxygen, based
on the properties of the reformulated gasoline that will be produced
through blending the appropriate type and amount of oxygenate with the
RBOB. As a result, if the incorrect type and/or amount of oxygenate is
blended with the RBOB, the refiner or importer may fail to comply with
the non-oxygen standards.
In order to ensure that the non-oxygen standards for RBOB are met,
refiners and importers may transfer RBOB only to oxygenate blenders
with whom they have a first- or second-hand contractual relationship.
This contract must include procedures intended to ensure proper
performance of oxygenate blending. In addition, the refiner or importer
must conduct a quality assurance program over the oxygenate blender's
blending operation.
These constraints on the transfer of RBOB do not apply if a refiner
or importer designates the RBOB as suitable for blending with any
oxygenate or with ethers only,<SUP>41 and assumes that ethanol will be
\4\1The ethers include but are not limited to MTBE, TAME, and
ETBE.
exemptions. (Such a party could petition the Agency for relief from
this result, for good cause.) Sixth, the California enforcement
exemptions would apply only during the time that the federal phase I
program remains in effect (i.e., until the year 2000), subject to
extension in a later rulemaking.
The February 26, 1993, NPRM contains a more detailed discussion of
the California reformulated gasoline program, the Agency's comparison
of the emission reduction benefits of the California and federal
programs, and the proposed California enforcement exemption provisions.
That notice also includes a detailed rationale for the proposed
exemptions and restrictions. See 58 FR 11747-11750.
The Agency received several comments on the proposed California
enforcement exemptions, all of which were generally supportive of the
regulation. Most of these comments also suggested various modifications
and clarifications of the proposed regulations. In this final rule the
Agency is promulgating a revised version of the California enforcement
exemptions regulation, which includes many of the modifications
recommended by commenters.<SUP>43 A detailed discussion of these
comments, the Agency's responses to these comments, and the
modifications made to the proposed rule is contained in a separate
``Responses to Comments'' document. The following is a summary of the
more significant changes made to the proposed rule:
\4\4 Use of the complex model is optional until the end of 1997,
and mandatory thereafter.
appeal has been completed. Once a final penalty assessment has been
made by an agency or a district court, the 90-day period will begin.
The provision related to compliance with standards on average for
an averaging period that is partly before and partly after March 1,
1996, has been clarified. Under the final rule, producers and importers
who elect to demonstrate compliance on average with any federal
reformulated gasoline standard<SUP>46 will be required to demonstrate
such compliance for two overlapping averaging periods: January 1, 1995,
through December 31, 1995; and March 1, 1995, through February 29,
1996. The proposal could have been interpreted to require compliance
with these standards for a two-month averaging period in early 1996,
which would be very difficult for refiners to meet on average and which
was not intended by the Agency.
require retention for two years). This requirement, along with other
enforcement provisions for which an exemption is not being provided,
will provide the Agency with the capability of performing audits of
compliance with federal requirements by parties who produce California
reformulated gasoline.
As noted above, more detailed information on the modifications made
to the proposed rule and the comments on which they are based is
contained in the separate ``Responses to Comments'' document. That
document also responds to comments that did not result in changes to
the proposed rule.
B. Testing Methods and Testing Tolerances
The final rule, in section 80.46, sets forth test methods regarding
reformulated gasoline parameters. EPA has carefully considered all
comments concerning proposed test methods and related issues and many
of those comments have been incorporated in the final rule. The test
methods are those that provide for the best balance of accuracy, cost
effectiveness and ease of use for competent lab technicians. The final
rule generally provides for one regulatory method for each parameter in
order to assure accuracy and to avoid problems with biases between
different methods. However, in two cases (regarding oxygen and
aromatics) the regulation provides for an alternative method for
industry to use, if desired, until January 1, 1997, to provide lead
time to acquire equipment necessary for the primary test method and to
become familiar with its use. Where American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM) methods have been adopted, any future updated version
of the ASTM methods will not automatically be adopted. EPA will use
appropriate procedures if it desires to adopt any updated methods.
1. Test Methodology Overview
2.
3.
EPA proposed test methods for the measurement of each of the
4. parameters required in the creation of reformulated gasoline, and
5. received numerous comments regarding the proposed methods. Most of the
6. comments were quite similar in their overall character. However, one
7. commenter seemed to summarize the prevailing recommendations quite
8. well. API stated in part: ``API recommends that EPA observe the
9. following guiding principles regarding laboratory test methods: (1)
10. Test methods must be proven. . . . (2) Test methods must be reliable. .
11. . . (3) Test procedures must be suitable for refinery personnel. . . .
12. (4) Test methods must not be unnecessarily costly. . . . (5) Test
13. method reproducibility must be recognized. . . . (6) Criteria for
14. adoption of other methods should be developed. . . .''
61. aromatics, where the test methods are relatively new, the regulation
62. provides for optional alternative methods for refiners and importers to
63. use to meet the testing requirements of section 80.65(e) until January
64. 1, 1997, providing lead-time for industry to acquire equipment and to
65. become familiar with use of the regulatory methods. Of course, these
66. alternative methods can likewise be used at any time for defense
67. purposes as long as there is correlation with the regulatory methods.
68.
69. Test Methods Under Section 80.46
70.
71. a. Reid vapor pressure (RVP). EPA proposed to use the ASTM method
72. ES-15 or the procedure described in 40 CFR part 80, appendices D and E.
73. Comments favored the use of ASTM ES-15. However, it was noted that ES74. 15 is a temporary emergency ASTM standard and will expire shortly. ASTM
75. D-5191 is the permanent standard. It was also noted that this method is
76. suitable for oxygenated blends.
77.
78. Commenters requested that EPA also allow the two dry methods set
79. forth in appendices D and E in 40 CFR part 80. These methods are the
80. manual tank and gauge method, the Herzog analog method, and the Herzog
81. digital method. In addition, a request was made to include the ASTM D82. 5190 method, an alternative mini method.
83. EPA has decided that RVP must be determined in accordance with the
84. method in 40 CFR part 80, appendix E, Method 3. This method, very
85. similar to ASTM D-5191, clearly complies with many of the criteria
86. espoused by API. The method is simple and inexpensive. Industry has
87. already begun to gear up for this method because of its use in the
88. Phase II Volatility regulations. It is appropriate to use the same RVP
89. test method for the volatility and reformulated gasoline programs to
90. prevent confusion and inconsistencies.
91. EPA has decided that the method in 40 CFR part 80, appendix E,
92. Method 3 will be the only regulatory volatility test method. As with
93. the volatility rule, other methods may be used for defense purposes as
94. long as the method used is properly correlated with the regulatory
95. method. (40 CFR part 80, appendix E, Method 3, Paragraph 9.4). See, 58
96. FR 14476 (March 17, 1993) for a more thorough discussion regarding the
97. choice of a single volatility test method.
98. b. Distillations. EPA proposed to use the ASTM method D-86-82 as
99. the regulatory test method, and comments were favorable with regard to
100. this method. It was noted, however, that the method was updated in
101. November 1990. This most recent revision of this method is ASTM D-86102.
103. One commenter requested that the language be more specific. Another
104. commenter suggested that a newer method, D-3710, which is a gas
105. chromatography method, be used. A notation was also made that the
150.
151. Most commenters opposed the method proposed by EPA. One
commenter
152. recommended delaying selection of a lab test method until the procedure
153. can be evaluated and completely developed. Commenters also criticized
154. the method for its cost, the amount of time the method demands, and
155. because industry feels that the method will require highly specialized
156. staff. One commenter stated that the proposed method was so incomplete
157. that it was not possible to provide detailed technical comments on it.
158. Most commenters suggested that EPA adopt ASTM method D-1319, a
159. fluorescent indicator absorption method.
160. EPA has decided to adopt the proposed method, the GC-MS, as the
161. single regulatory method for the determination of total aromatics.
162. However, because the method is relatively new, leaving industry little
163. time to scrutinize the method, the final regulations allow use of ASTM
164. method D-1319-93 until January 1, 1997 for purposes of meeting the
165. industry testing requirements under section 80.65(e), provided this
166. method is correlated with the GC-MS method. This two year transition
167. period should allow sufficient time for industry to purchase equipment
168. and become familiar with the new method. In addition, during this time
169. period, it is anticipated that EPA and industry can discuss any
170. problems that might arise as a result of the new method being
171. promulgated. Moreover, the GC-MS method has been rewritten to provide
172. more detail and specificity.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
EPA has been using GC-OFID for four years. During that period, the
cracker reactor has required replacement on only one occasion. EPA has
had the opportunity to use various portable IR methods for field
screening tests and has been pleased with the results. However,
although these are excellent screening devices, they are not presently
at the stage of development that would allow their use as a regulatory
enforcement method.
271.
272. Enforcement Test Tolerances
273.
274. EPA has chosen to set forth enforcement test tolerances in the
275. preamble of this regulation for oxygen, benzene, and RVP, the three
276. parameters that will be subject to enforcement testing for minimum and/
298.
299.
300.
301.
302.
303.
304.
305.
306.
307.
308.
309.
310.
311.
312.
313.
314.
315.
316.
317.
EPA has established appropriate test procedures for use with the
model, but they measure not air pollution emissions but fuel parameter
values needed to operate the model. 40 CFR 80.46. EPA has, however,
established test tolerances to determine when fuel parameter values are
acceptable for use in the model, as well as limits on the range of the
parameters for the model. Where a refiner or importer seeks to augment
the emissions model through a vehicle test program, EPA's regulations
also include provisions on testing and calculations, and account for
test tolerances through the averaging of vehicle test results. EPA
believes these fully implement any requirement to establish test
tolerances in a context where an emissions model is the methodology to
determine air pollutant emissions.
Some commenters point to language of various legislators made
during the floor debate on the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. In the
floor debate, various Congressmen made general statements on the issue
of whether EPA must provide enforcement tolerances under section
211(k)(4)(C).<SUP>48 There is no clear indication in these statements
that Congress intended in section 211(k)(4)(C) to mandate changes in
the numerical standards adopted by EPA, or to mandate a regulatory
exercise of enforcement discretion. Instead these floor debate
statements are most reasonably read as indicating that EPA should
establish reasonable testing tolerances in the procedures and
methodologies adopted to quantify air pollutants for the reformulated
gasoline and anti-dumping programs, so that the regulated community and
EPA can measure these air pollutants in a workable, verifiable manner
without undue cost. EPA believes that its regulations fully implement
this objective. To the extent these statements during the floor debate
Therefore, these simple model parameters are the only ones likely to
involve EPA testing for enforcement purposes. Although not required to
do so, EPA has decided to set forth in the preamble of this Rule
testing tolerances for these parameters, in order to provide regulated
entities with information of interest to them regarding EPA's
enforcement program.
In fuels enforcement programs under Title II of the Clean Air Act,
EPA generally uses data obtained from its own laboratory to determine
the appropriateness of any testing tolerance. At the present time,
however, sufficient data needed to determine enforcement testing
tolerances based on EPA laboratory data are not available. Therefore,
EPA is setting initial test tolerances sufficiently large to assure
that any competent laboratory testing a conforming sample could arrive
at results that would indicate that the sample was not in violation.
However, EPA may adopt new tolerances as data on test methods are
developed, as technology changes, or as further information becomes
available concerning the precision and accuracy of a particular method,
whether established by EPA or by multiple testing protocol.
The test tolerance is only to be used by EPA to determine whether
an enforcement action should be brought. It is EPA's contention that
any sample that is over the standard is in violation. However, no
enforcement action will be brought if the sample is over the standard,
but within the tolerance. Furthermore, refiners and importers may not
use the tolerance to expand the applicable standard. If the refiner or
importer results show the product to be above the standard, then the
product is in violation regardless of whether or not it is within the
tolerance.
To better establish the most appropriate test tolerances, EPA
proposes a joint effort between EPA and industry to develop a gasoline
standard with known properties which could be used by all laboratories
for calibration purposes and for detecting laboratory biases.
EPA has not included in this Preamble the enforcement tolerances
for VOC and NO<INF>X emissions performance, but intends to issue
guidance that includes these enforcement tolerances within the next
several months. The tolerances applicable under the complex model will
be applied by EPA in the manner discussed above.
The following enforcement tolerances currently are applicable under
the simple model:
a. RVP. A tolerance of 0.30 psi will be allowed for RVP in order
to be consistent with the tolerance level currently used in the
gasoline volatility program.
\5\0 EPA estimates the cost to collect and store a sample will
be $230, and the analysis costs will be $42 (based on an analysis
cost of $415 and analysis of 10% of the samples collected at a
refinery), or $272.
cheater can buy off its ``independent'' laboratory. While this type of
fraud is always possible, EPA believes it is considerably more
difficult for a refiner or importer intent on cheating to falsify
reports when a second company has to be brought into the conspiracy.
Given the consequences if caught, independent laboratories are unlikely
to collaborate with a refiner or importer to falsify reports to EPA.
False reporting by a refiner, importer, or independent laboratory would
constitute a criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. section 1001, subject
to monetary penalties and imprisonment, and EPA would expect to seek
vigorous prosecution of such a case. In addition, the final rule
provides that any laboratory that fails to comply with the requirements
of the rule is subject to debarment or suspension, i.e., the company
that operates the laboratory would be made ineligible for any
government contracts, and would be precluded from participating in the
reformulated gasoline program.
Another criticism made of the independent sampling and testing
provision is the inconsistency with the requirements for conventional
gasoline, where independent sampling and testing is not required. EPA
considered requiring independent sampling and testing for conventional
gasoline, but decided to treat conventional and reformulated gasoline
differently in this regard. EPA believes the profit incentive for
cheating is less for a producer of conventional gasoline than for a
producer of reformulated gasoline. Conventional gasoline does not
require the new and costly refining procedures necessary for
reformulated gasoline, and will not be sold at reformulated gasoline's
price. In contrast to reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline is
subject to neither time and place of use restrictions nor to per-gallon
maximums and minimums. Moreover, an enforcement program for
reformulated gasoline that is more strict than for conventional
gasoline is appropriate given the greater air quality concerns in the
areas slated to receive reformulated gasoline.
EPA considered enforcement approaches to verifying refiner and
importer test results for conventional gasoline that are less
burdensome than independent sampling and testing, such as the
approaches that were suggested by the reformulated gasoline commenters
and are discussed below. These middle-ground approaches were rejected
for the same reasons they were rejected for the reformulated gasoline
program--they simply would not be effective as test verification
mechanisms.
As a result, EPA concluded that while independent sampling and
testing is necessary for reformulated gasoline, these procedures are
not justified for conventional gasoline.
Commenters suggested several alternatives to independent sampling
EPA proposed that refiners and importers of RBOB have two options
for the oxygen content value used in their calculations of non-oxygen
parameters. A refiner or importer could use the actual oxygenate type
and amount blended with the RBOB, provided the refiner or importer
carries out a program of contractual controls and quality assurance
sampling and testing over the downstream oxygenate blending operation.
Under the second option, the refiner or importer could make certain
default assumptions regarding the type and amount of oxygenate blended
downstream. EPA proposed that this assumption must be the ``worst
case'' assumption with regard to the oxygenate type, and volume (within
the oxygen minimum and maximum requirements).<SUP>53
One commenter suggested that EPA should modify the nature of this
default assumption, by allowing refiners to designate one of two
categories of RBOB, ``ether-only RBOB'' and ``any-oxygenate RBOB.''
30. are made, they would apply to all reformulated gasoline produced at
31. that refinery for the entire averaging period for these parameters.
32. EPA is making this change from the proposal because it is concerned
33. that under the proposed approach nationwide average levels for
34. regulated parameters would not achieve the levels of the average
35. standards. For example, the average standard for benzene is set at 0.95
36. wt%, because, among other factors, EPA estimates that this level is at
37. least as stringent as the benzene level that would exist in the absence
38. of averaging. EPA is concerned that under the proposed approach for
39. electing per-gallon versus average standards the nationwide average
40. benzene levels in reformulated gasoline would be greater than the 0.95
41. wt% average standard for benzene. This result would be contrary to the
42. intent of the Clean Air Act and EPA's goal that averaging should result
43. in average parameter levels that are no less stringent than would occur
44. in the absence of averaging.
45.
46. Section 211(k)(7)(C) of the Act provides that benzene and oxygen
47. credits may not result in average levels for these parameters that are
48. less stringent than would occur in the absence of using any benzene or
49. oxygen credits. EPA has viewed this constraint on the use of credits as
50. appropriate to employ for all reformulated gasoline parameters that may
51. be met on average, including parameters other than oxygen and benzene,
52. that averaging should not result in average parameter levels that are
53. less stringent than would occur in the absence of averaging.
54. In addition, section 211(k)(1) of the Act directs EPA to promulgate
55. reformulated gasoline regulations that require the greatest achievable
56. reductions in VOC and toxics emissions, taking into account cost,
57. health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. EPA has
58. concluded that if refiners were required to meet the reformulated
59. gasoline standards on a per-gallon basis only, that refiners would
60. produce gasoline with properties equal to the standards plus ``marginsof
61. -safety'' necessary to ensure the gasoline in fact meets the pergallon
62. standards. EPA also has concluded that the added flexibility
63. afforded regulated parties through an average VOC or toxics standard
64. results in the ability by refiners and importers to achieve more
65. stringent standards when met on average than is possible when standards
66. are met per-gallon, and the magnitude of this greater stringency is at
67. least equal to the margins-of-safety that would be used with per-gallon
68. standards. As a result, in implementing section 211(k)(1) EPA intends
69. to establish requirements that will result in reformulated gasoline
70. having VOC and toxics properties that in practice are at least equal to
71. the per-gallon standards plus the margins-of-safety (which is equal to
72. the average standards).
73.
74.
75. reformulated gasoline should have VOC and toxics emissions performance
76. properties, and benzene and oxygen content properties that, regardless
77. of whether credits or averaging are used, are in practice at least
78. equal to the more stringent properties refiners would achieve if only a
79. per-gallon standard were allowed. The level of these more stringent
80. properties is at least equal to the per-gallon standard plus any
81. ``margin-of-safety'' refiners would employ if only per-gallon standards
82. were included.
83.
84. As a result, EPA proposed and is adopting standards for average
85. compliance that are more stringent than the standards for per-gallon
86. compliance. Moreover, the differences between the proposed average and
87. per-gallon standards reflect EPA's estimates of this per-gallon
88. ``margin-of-safety'' for each parameter. The relationship between
89. margins-of-safety and average standards is discussed more fully in the
90. 1992 SNPRM, at 57 FR 13457-13458.
91.
92. EPA is concerned that if refiners, importers, and oxygenate
93. blenders can elect per-gallon versus average standards on a batch-bybatch
94. basis, the levels of parameters in practice will not, on average,
95. be approximately at the level expected if only a per-gallon standard
96. were applied (equal to the per-gallon standards plus the margins-ofsafety),
97. but rather will on average be closer to the per-gallon
98. standards. EPA believes the proposed approach would have this result
99. because of the ability of refiners and importers to elect to use the
100. per-gallon or the average standards separately for each batch.
101. For example, the per-gallon benzene standard is 1.00 vol%, and the
102. average benzene standard is 0.95 vol%. Under the proposal a refiner
103. could, for each batch of gasoline produced, elect to meet the pergallon
104. or the average benzene standard. EPA believes that under the
105. proposed approach most refiners would produce gasoline with the
106. intention that the benzene level will be very close to, but slightly
107. below, 1.00 vol%. If the refiner's benzene test for any given batch
108. indicates the benzene level is between 0.95 vol% and 1.00 vol% (which
109. refiners would be able to achieve for most batches), the batch would be
110. placed in the per-gallon compliance category. If the refiner misses
111. this benzene goal for any batch, and the refiner's test result
112. indicates a benzene level above 1.00 vol% (1.05 vol%, for example), the
113. refiner would simply place that batch in the average compliance
114. category, and also produce a corresponding volume of gasoline in the
115. average category (or change a previously-produced batch to the average
116. compliance category) having a benzene level sufficiently below 0.95
117. vol% that the two batches have an average benzene content of 0.95 vol%.
118. The net result over the annual benzene averaging period would be that
119. the majority of gasoline would be in the per-gallon compliance category
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
with an average benzene content close to 1.00 vol%, while the minority
of gasoline would be in the average compliance category with an average
benzene content of 0.95 vol%. Under this example, the resulting overall
benzene level of the gasoline produced by the refiner would be greater
than the approximately 0.95 vol% which EPA would expect if all
reformulated gasoline had to meet the per-gallon benzene standard.
EPA announced in its 1992 proposal a clear intention that average
standards be allowed in order to increase refiner and importer
flexibility. EPA also made clear its expectation that the ``margin-ofsafety''
normally expected with a per-gallon standard not be lost
because of averaging. This change is designed to implement this goal by
preventing the potential unfavorable result from averaging described
above. The final rule therefore includes a requirement that refiners,
importers, and oxygenate blenders must elect, for each calendar year
and for each parameter, to use only the per-gallon standard or only the
average standard for each regulated parameter. This election must be
made separately for each refinery.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162. EPA has not included a process for refiners, importers, and
163. oxygenate blenders to notify EPA in advance of the per-gallon versus
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171. Oxygen averaging
172.
173. a. Separate oxygen averaging for simple model VOC-controlled
174. reformulated gasoline. In the proposed regulations published in 1992,
175. EPA proposed that in the case of gasoline subject to the simple model
176. the oxygen standard would have to be met separately for reformulated
177. gasoline that is designated as VOC-controlled. The rationale for this
178. category of oxygen averaging was that under the simple model the VOC
179. emissions reductions required for reformulated gasoline would be deemed
180. met only if the oxygen and RVP standards are each met for gasoline
181. designated as VOC-controlled. Under that proposal, the gasoline quality
182. surveys to be conducted in cities during the high ozone season would
183. measure both RVP and oxygen of gasoline; the city would be considered
184. to have passed a VOC survey only if both the oxygen and RVP levels met
185. the per-gallon standards for these parameters.
186. An industry group commented on this approach to VOC surveys and
187. oxygen averaging. This commenter suggested that the VOC surveys
should
188. be based on a ``simple model'' VOC equation that would take into
189. account both oxygen and RVP. Under this VOC equation, if the oxygen
190. content found during a survey is below the per-gallon oxygen standard
191. (worse than the standard), this deficiency may be offset by an RVP
192. level that is below the per-gallon RVP standard (better than the
193. standard), and vice versa. This commenter went on to suggest that under
194. this approach, there would be no need to require refiners and importers
195. to separately meet the oxygen standard for simple model VOC-controlled
196. reformulated gasoline.<SUP>55 Instead, according to this comment, the
197. oxygen standard should apply only on an annual basis.<SUP>56
198.
199.
\5\5Under the 1992 proposal, the separate RVP standard would
apply only to simple model VOC-controlled reformulated gasoline. The
manner in which the RVP standard applies to VOC-controlled gasoline
under today's rule is the same as in the proposals. The oxygen
standard, on the other hand, would have to be met separately for two
In the 1993 proposal, EPA adopted the approach to VOC surveys and
oxygen averaging suggested by this commenter. EPA has now reconsidered,
and has included in the final rule a requirement for separate oxygen
averaging for simple model VOC-controlled gasoline. The final rule
retains the ``simple model'' VOC emissions reduction equation for use
in gasoline quality surveys during the high ozone season, however.
EPA agrees that the ``simple model'' VOC equation is appropriate
for use in the VOC compliance surveys. This is because the surveys are
designed to help ensure that the area in fact receives the VOC
reductions required by the simple model RVP and oxygen per-gallon and
averaging standards, where refiners and importers do not need to
demonstrate compliance on average beyond the refinery or importer
level. If the surveys show compliance on average with the expected VOC
reductions, then there would not be a need to ``ratchet'' the RVP or
oxygen standards. However, the surveys are an enforcement and
compliance tool, and do not replace the simple model standards
themselves. Even if the surveys are passed, the separate RVP and oxygen
content standards still apply under the simple model and refiners and
importers must comply with them. Given the inherent limits on the
frequency and number of VOC gasoline quality surveys they can not
reasonably be treated as a substitute for the standards themselves. It
is reasonable to require that a refiner or importer demonstrate
compliance with the simple model oxygen content standards that apply
under averaging.
Under this view, the purpose of the ``simple model'' VOC equation
as used in VOC compliance surveys is to allow a slight variance in
oxygen due to averaging, to be offset by a slight variance in RVP due
to averaging, and vice versa. The ``simple model'' VOC equation is not
intended to encourage refiners to employ a strategy of producing simple
model VOC-controlled gasoline well below the oxygen standard, to be
offset by gasoline well below the RVP standard. The simple model RVP
and oxygen standards will still apply.
Under the complex model separate oxygen averaging is not necessary
for VOC-controlled gasoline, because there is a specific standard for
VOC emissions performance that applies to reformulated gasoline. VOC
emissions performance will be used under the complex model gasoline
quality surveys.
b. Averaging and credits under the separate oxygen categories.
Under the final rule, simple model reformulated gasoline designated as
meeting the oxygen standard on average must meet the oxygen standard
during the calendar year averaging period, and must meet this standard
separately for VOC-controlled gasoline, and for non-OPRG
gasoline.<SUP>57 This preamble section is intended to clarify the
mechanism for meeting these overlapping oxygen requirements within a
single refinery or oxygenate blending facility, or for a single
importer. In addition, this section is intended to clarify the manner
in which oxygen credits may be created, transferred, and used.
VOC-controlled, non-OPRG;
Non-VOC-controlled, non-OPRG;
Non-VOC-controlled, OPRG; and
VOC-controlled, OPRG.<SUP>58
8.
\5\8One industry group commented that there will be no gasoline
in the VOC-controlled, OPRG category. EPA disagrees with this
conclusion.
VOC-controlled gasoline must be present in terminals in covered
areas during the period May 1 through September 15. The oxygenated
fuels control periods for areas that also are included in the
reformulated gasoline program begin on October 1 or later, and last
through either January or February, except for the New York City
area, which lasts until April 30. Parties will supply OPRG gasoline
to terminals in advance of October 1 in order to ``blend up''
terminals to the oxygenated fuels standard by that date. If this
OPRG gasoline arrives at terminals before September 15 (which likely
will occur), the gasoline also would have to meet the VOC-control
standards; the product thus would be in the VOC-controlled, OPRG
category. A similar situation will likely occur in the Spring in New
York City, where parties will supply VOC-controlled gasoline to
terminals in advance of May 1 in order to ``blend up'' terminals to
meet the VOC-control standards by that date. This pre-May 1 gasoline
thus would also be in the VOC-controlled, OPRG category.
The final rule does not require that each of these categories must
separately meet the oxygen standard. Only VOC-controlled and non-OPRG
gasoline must each separately meet the oxygen standard. As a result,
the oxygen averaging standards must be separately met for the following
three classes of gasoline:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Designations
---------------------
Volume
Batch No.
1.............................
2.............................
3.............................
4.............................
5.............................
6.............................
7.............................
100
150
120
100
130
160
160
2.3
1.9
2.2
1.8
2.1
2.2
2.5
Yes.......
No........
No........
Yes.......
Yes.......
No........
Yes.......
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
No.
Refiner A then calculated the compliance total for oxygen for each
of the four categories, by multiplying the volume of gasoline in that
category times 2.1; and the actual total for oxygen for each category,
by multiplying the volume of each batch in a category times the oxygen
content of the batch, and summing the results for the category. The
refiner's results are as follows:
Categories
--------------------------------------------------VOCNon-VOC- Non-VOCVOCcontrol, control, control, control,
non-OPRG non-OPRG
OPRG
OPRG
Compliance total....
819
651
252
210
Actual total........
903
637
264
180
Compliance total....................
Actual total........................
Net total...........................
1029
1470
1932
1031
1488
1932
2
18
0
Because the actual total for oxygen is, for each class of oxygen
averaging, equal to or greater than the compliance total, Refiner A has
met the oxygen averaging standards.
For gasoline subject to the complex model, there are only two
classes for oxygen averaging: non-OPRG, and overall. In consequence,
oxygen credits must be placed into one of only two categories--OPRG,
and non-OPRG. With these simplifications, oxygen credits for gasoline
subject to complex model standards would be created, transferred, and
use in a manner similar to the example described above. Because of the
differences in oxygen categories for simple and complex gasoline,
however, oxygen credits generated from gasoline subject to the complex
model could not be used to achieve compliance for gasoline subject to
the simple model.
3. NO<INF>X averaging
oxygen or benzene levels that are worse than would occur if no credit
provisions were allowed. This is the statutory basis for including
benzene and oxygen credits in the proposals and in the final rule.
EPA believes these provisions are satisfied by refinery-based
averaging combined with compliance surveys, but also believes they
would allow a refiner or importer to meet the reformulated gasoline
standards for oxygen and/or benzene (but not for other parameters) on
average if the party is able to demonstrate the gasoline it produces or
imports, and uses within a single covered area, meets the oxygen or
benzene standards on average. To the extent section 211(k)(7) provides
for such intra-covered area averaging, it would be allowed without the
need for the gasoline quality surveys that are the general prerequisite
for averaging.
In order to give regulatory effect to this averaging aspect of
section 211(k)(7) of the Act, EPA proposed regulations that would allow
intra-covered area averaging without meeting the survey requirements.
The proposal would have allowed this averaging approach for all
parameters that may be averaged. The proposal did not, however, include
enforcement mechanisms intended to ensure a party choosing this option
does so properly, such as mechanisms to ensure, and document, the
gasoline in question is used only in a single covered area, such as
recordkeeping, reporting, or quality assurance requirements.
EPA generally has retained this averaging option in the final rule
in section 80.67(a)(2), but with several modifications. The final rule
restricts the non-survey averaging option to oxygen and benzene only.
This restriction is included because EPA intends to limit its
application only to those parameters included in section 211(k)(7) of
the Act. In addition, EPA has included in the final rule the
requirement that any party intending to use the non-survey averaging
option must first obtain approval from EPA through a petition process.
The final rule specifies that the petition must describe in detail the
mechanisms the refiner or importer will use to ensure that the gasoline
in question is in fact produced by the refiner or imported by the
importer, and is used only within the covered area and in no other
attainment area or covered area. The petition also must describe the
recordkeeping, reporting, auditing, and other quality assurance
measures the party will use to document and report the quality of the
gasoline used in the covered area.
The petition would be expected to address mechanisms to establish
with certainty the properties of the gasoline used in the covered area,
and mechanisms to ensure the gasoline delivered for use in the covered
area is not transported by a transferee of the gasoline (e.g., a truck
being met on an average basis, all persons who satisfy the oxygenate
blender definition may not have access to the information necessary to
know that this standard is being met in fact. This issue was of
particular concern for oxygenate blenders who are carriers, where the
normal business practice is to blend oxygenate according to the
instructions of the product owner-oxygenate blender.
The final rule provides that oxygenate blenders will be held
liable, inter alia, for reformulated gasoline produced for averaged
compliance that is determined to exceed the minimum and/or maximum
standards. The final rule also prohibits the sale, by any person, of
gasoline that violates, inter alia, a refiners' averaged compliance
with the standards.
Oxygenate blenders have direct control over whether a specific fuel
meets the minimum and/or maximum requirements of the reformulated
gasoline program. Blenders have no control over whether that fuel is
being produced to comply with per-gallon or averaged standards. Where
gasoline is designated for oxygen compliance on a per-gallon basis, the
blender may take steps to ensure that 2.0 weight percent oxygen is
added to each batch of gasoline produced. Where gasoline is produced to
averaged compliance, the blender is precluded from independent
knowledge of whether the average will be met.
EPA appreciates this dilemma faced by parties downstream of a
refiner achieving compliance on average. However, EPA believes both
that the requirements that blenders be held potentially liable for
selling averaged gasoline that fails to meet the averaged standard is
necessary and that adequate safeguards are available. Potential
liability is necessary to effectively prevent the sale and distribution
of non-complying product by downstream parties which possess any
opportunity to prevent the product from being released into the
environment.
For example, if a carrier-oxygenate blender receives instructions
to add less than 2.00 weight percent oxygen to RBOB (the per-gallon
oxygen standard), the carrier should obtain the assurance of the
product owner, in writing if possible, that the reformulated gasoline
being produced meets the oxygen standard on average. If a violation of
the average oxygen standard occurs involving gasoline produced by the
carrier-oxygenate blender, and the carrier-oxygenate blender can
demonstrate that it made this inquiry in good faith and received an
appropriate assurance, EPA will exercise its enforcement discretion and
not hold the carrier-oxygen blender liable for the standard violation
unless the carrier knew, or should have known, the oxygen standard
would not be met on average. This type of inquiry and assurance would
be no defense for oxygenate blended outside the per-gallon minimum/
40. downstream parties may determine if any particular gasoline batch meets
41. the per-gallon minimums and maximums through sampling and testing.
42. Moreover, EPA inspections conducted downstream of the refinery/importer
43. will monitor compliance with the per-gallon minimums and maximums, and
44. not compliance with the standards that apply to refiners and importers.
45.
46.
\6\1For example, the refiner/importer benzene standard is 1.00
volume percent if met on a per-gallon basis, or 0.95 volume percent
if met on average with a 1.30 volume percent per-gallon maximum. As
a result, no gallon of gasoline may have a benzene content greater
than 1.30 volume percent, regardless of whether the gasoline is
produced or imported to the per-gallon or average standard. This
1.30 benzene maximum thus may be enforced against downstream
parties.
2. Liabilities
a. General. The final rule provides that where the gasoline
contained in a storage tank at any facility owned, leased, operated,
controlled or supervised by any refiner, importer, oxygenate blender,
carrier, distributor, reseller, retailer, or wholesale purchaserconsumer
is found in violation of the prohibitions, most parties
involved in the chain of distribution upstream of the facility found in
violation are presumed liable for the violation.
Carriers are presumed liable for violations arising from product
under the control and/or custody of the carrier at the carrier's
facility, and for violations at any facility where EPA demonstrates
that the carrier caused the violation. Carriers who meet the definition
of refiner or oxygenate blender have the same liabilities and defenses
as any other refiner or oxygenate blender.
The final rule also provides defenses against liability for each
person presumed liable. These defenses are discussed below. For a more
detailed discussion of the rationale for the liabilities and defenses
established by this rule, see EPA's proposal at 57 FR 13470-13473
(April 16, 1992).
One commenter stated that where gasoline in a storage tank is in
violation of the regulations, EPA should either narrow the range of
persons presumptively liable or expand the availability of affirmative
defenses. The comment is based on the normal industry practice of
commingling products in common storage tanks, the number of fuel
manufacturers that would be involved, the likelihood of commingling,
the absence of quantitative thresholds, and the absence of a
requirement that individual parties exercise sufficient control over
the contents of the tank. Another commenter queried what distinguishes
this program from other fuels programs which did not impose such
presumptive liability.
EPA has had extensive experience in enforcing other motor vehicle
fuel programs under 40 CFR part 80, including the unleaded gasoline and
gasoline volatility programs and the recent diesel sulfur program. Each
of these other fuels programs include presumptive liability schemes
that are very similar to the presumptive liability scheme proposed for
reformulated gasoline.
The liability and defense provisions of this rule are structured
similarly to those adopted by EPA in its prior motor vehicle fuel
programs, including the controls on leaded and unleaded gasoline,
owner, and have incentives to not tamper with the product, as it would
expose them to liability and would prejudice their relationships with
both the shipper and purchaser. Commenters stated that carriers lack
any economic incentive to violate the reformulated gasoline
requirements, and any action that does not violate these requirements
is only in response to the gasoline owner's instructions. Commenters
also stated that carriers cannot refuse such instructions except for
clear violations of the law.
Barge operator-carriers noted that the risk of accidental
contamination for barge operator-carriers is virtually nonexistent due
to contract obligations to maintain cargo integrity and the product
testing that occurs before and after shipping. They also argued that
the volume of product in a barge-tank would dilute any trace
contaminants such that there was no practical risk of a violation of
the reformulated gasoline requirements from contamination.
EPA recognizes that carriers occupy a role that is somewhat unique
in the gasoline distribution system. In general, EPA agrees that there
is limited economic incentive for carriers to tamper with the quality
of gasoline, in that carriers do not own the gasoline they ship or
store and would not profit by taking advantage of the price
differential between complying and noncomplying gasoline. At the same
time, there are still significant opportunities for carriers to
directly cause violations of the reformulated gasoline program. For
example, a carrier's delivery territory may span a boundary between an
area requiring reformulated gasoline and an area that may receive
conventional gasoline. Misdelivery of conventional fuel into the
reformulated gasoline covered area would be a violation of the
prohibitions of the reformulated gasoline program. Other situations
where a carrier can cause a violation include a terminal-carrier or
truck-carrier who mixes conventional gasoline and reformulated gasoline
and transfers the resulting gasoline as reformulated; who mixes
reformulated gasoline designated as VOC-controlled with non-VOCcontrolled
gasoline and transfers the resulting gasoline as VOCcontrolled;
who delivers gasoline designated for use in VOC-Control
Region 1 to a retail outlet located in VOC-Control Region 2; who mixes
oxygen program reformulated gasoline (OPRG) and non-OPRG reformulated
gasoline and transfers the mixture as OPRG; or who mixes simple and
complex model reformulated gasoline. In these examples, EPA would hold
the carrier liable if the carrier improperly delivered the gasoline or
mixed the gasolines that should have been segregated. Note that the
gasoline owner in each of these examples also would be presumed liable
for the violation.
Based on these circumstances, the presumption of liability assigned
discretion.
3. Defenses
The final rule specifies that a regulated party may rebut the
presumption of liability by demonstrating (1) that it did not cause the
violation, (2) that the product transfer documents account for all the
gasoline in question and indicate that the product complied with all
applicable standards, and (3) that the party conducted an acceptable
quality assurance program of periodic sampling and testing.
When a non-complying product is found at a facility operating under
a refiner's brand name, the refiner must also demonstrate additional
elements for a valid defense. This includes a showing that the
violation was caused by a party in violation of a contractual
understanding imposed by the refiner to prevent such action.
The defenses available to regulated parties to rebut the
presumption of liability are closely patterned after those adopted for
other motor vehicle fuel regulatory programs under 40 CFR part 80,
including the gasoline volatility program. The presumption of liability
is rebuttable, including the imposition of vicarious refiner liability
for violations detected at branded facilities. This regulatory
structure is fully consistent with the relevant judicial decisions in
this area. See Amoco Oil Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 501
F.2d 270 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (``Amoco II''), and National Tank Truck
Carriers, Inc., supra.
As discussed above, carriers not acting as refiners or oxygenate
blenders will not be deemed presumptively liable for violations found
downstream of the carrier facility, unless EPA shows that the carrier
caused the violation. Accordingly, such carriers will not be required
to present a defense to such downstream violations. However, where a
violation is found at a carrier's facility, the carrier must meet the
defense elements in order to avoid liability. Note that EPA intends to
exercise its enforcement discretion to permit a carrier to rely on a
properly conducted quality assurance program undertaken by the product
owner to satisfy the quality assurance program defense element.
One commenter observed that the proposed regulations fail to
account for carriers making consecutive deliveries to reformulated
gasoline and conventional gasoline markets. Such carriers may appear to
have complying and non-complying product on board, according to the
commenter.
The issue raised by this commenter applies not only to carriers,
liability.
A commenter requested that EPA define the frequency of sampling and
testing that EPA would consider sufficient to satisfy the quality
assurance defense element. Another commenter recommended that EPA
should base enforcement actions exclusively on EPA testing using
regulatory test methods and not on oversight sampling and testing by
regulated parties.
EPA is reluctant to specify the details of a ``sufficient'' quality
assurance sampling and testing program, because the type of program
that is sufficient in any situation depends on the particular facts of
that situation. In addition, EPA believes regulated parties are closest
to their own operations and are therefore in the best position to judge
the program that is adequate. Typically, such a program should include
sampling and testing of a representative sampling of the gasoline the
party receives and ships or delivers; identification of any sample that
is in violation of relevant standards, and for such a sample,
correction of the violation and the conditions that caused the
violation; and an increased rate of sampling and testing when
conditions indicate an increased likelihood of violations (e.g.,
violating samples found).
In the case where a violation is detected through a party's quality
assurance program, and the party corrects both the violation and the
conditions that caused the violation without any involvement by EPA,
EPA generally forgoes any enforcement on the basis of the party's test
results. If the party does not follow-up on violations in this manner,
however, EPA may initiate an enforcement action on the basis of the
party's test results.
Carrier-commenters objected to the quality assurance sampling and
testing defense element as applied to carriers. Commenters stated that
a carrier is in a uniquely weak position in the gasoline distribution
system to verify the characteristics of product received in order to
rebut an assertion that the carrier caused a violation.
EPA recognizes that the term ``carrier'' covers an array of
carriage and distribution operations. Pipelines, barge operations, ship
operations, tank trucks, and storage facilities may all meet the
definition of a carrier. Each type of carrier has unique capacities for
conducting quality assurance sampling and testing programs. For
instance, pipelines, barge and ship carriers, and storage facilities
typically deal with large volumes of gasoline. EPA believes that these
1. Introduction
2.
3.
EPA's regulations prescribe the procedures for establishing 1990
4. baselines for refiners and importers. Compliance with the anti-dumping
5. standards is measured by comparison to these baselines. In addition,
6. during the period 1995 through 1997, the reformulated gasoline
7. emissions standards are based in part on maximum parameter levels
8. measured against these baselines. Section 211(k)(8) provides for
9. refiners, blenders or importers to determine individual 1990 baselines
10. predicated on adequate and reliable data. In the absence of such
11. adequate and reliable data, Congress prescribed a summertime baseline
12. and mandated that the Administrator would establish a wintertime
13. baseline.''<SUP>66
14.
15.
16.
\6\6The statutory baseline is intended to approximate the
national average gasoline parameter values for gasoline used in the
United States in 1990.
2 and 3 baselines when these Methods will not work properly for some or
most foreign refiners, and when the consequence of such a failure would
be to bar the foreign refiner from importing gasoline into the U.S.
Therefore, in order to create a non-optional baseline setting approach
for foreign refiners, EPA determined to regulate their gasolines
through domestic importers as described above.
In addition to the technical difficulties inherent in applying
baseline-setting Methods 2 and 3 to importers and foreign refiners, and
the potential for gaming that would result from optional use of these
Methods, EPA is concerned that it would be unable to carry out a
consistently effective compliance monitoring and enforcement program of
foreign refinery baselines set using these Methods, with the result
that the accuracy of foreign refinery baselines would not be ensured.
There is a fundamental distinction between EPA's ability to monitor
and enforce regulatory requirements that would apply against domestic
as opposed to foreign refiners. Simply put, domestic refiners are
subject to the full panoply of EPA's regulatory jurisdiction and
compliance monitoring, while not all foreign refiners desiring to
produce reformulated and/or conventional gasoline may be subject to
EPA's regulatory jurisdiction with equivalent certainty. Compliance
monitoring and enforcement are integral to the establishment of
accurate and verifiable baselines, as well as subsequent compliance
with standards based on these baselines.
The reformulated gasoline program compliance monitoring and
enforcement scheme consists of several elements designed in the
aggregate to ensure that the environmental goals of the Clean Air Act
are met, including, inter alia: baseline-setting audits; mandatory
reporting and record keeping; independent laboratory sampling and
testing; tracking of product from point of production to point of
distribution; unannounced EPA compliance inspections; annual attest
engagements by certified professionals; and an enforcement scheme
comprised of civil penalties, injunctive relief, and criminal
sanctions. Domestic refiners and importers are subject to EPA
jurisdiction in each of these activities; all foreign refiners may not
be equally amenable to EPA jurisdiction.
Domestic refiners, required to establish individual baselines using
actual or inferred 1990 production values (Methods 1, 2 and/or 3), are
required to have baseline parameter determination methodology and
resulting values verified by an EPA-certified auditor. However, foreign
refiners, like all foreign corporations and citizens, enjoy protected
status under the laws of their national jurisdiction and are not
equally amenable to EPA audits of refiner baselines.<SUP>68 EPA has
experienced difficulty in other mobile source regulatory programs,
including the foreign automotive certificate of conformity program, in
gaining entry to foreign countries to conduct compliance inspections
and therefore believes similar problems could arise under the
reformulated gasoline program.
EPA has considered whether one or more foreign refiners may be able
to devise a diplomatic instrument sufficient to guarantee EPA's
certified auditors and inspectors access to conduct baseline
verification audits and compliance oversight and enforcement
inspections. However, the foreign supply of gasoline (conventional and
ultimately reformulated gasolines) to the U.S. currently depends on
imports from numerous foreign sources. EPA believes it unlikely that
all current (or foreseeable future) foreign suppliers of gasoline will
be able to provide adequate diplomatic guarantees for EPA access.
The environmental benefits of the reformulated gasoline program
depend on EPA's receipt of accurate and verifiable reports from
regulated parties, and EPA's ability to review the data possessed by
the regulated community that underlies the reports, or in the
alternative, EPA's ability to seek civil, criminal and professional
sanctions against domestic corporate officers and professionals engaged
in maintaining records or submitting reports and audits to the U.S.
government. However, in the case of foreign refineries, EPA does not
have the authority for oversight of the record keeping and reporting
process that is equivalent to EPA's authority over domestic refiners
and possible sanctions are not equally available to ensure accurate
reports by foreign parties. Again, EPA believes it unlikely that all
foreign governments desiring to import reformulated or conventional
gasoline to the U.S. would either consent or be able to provide
adequate assurance of foreign reporters' amenability to EPA legal
process.
will apply for gasoline produced or imported during 1994 are limited to
oxygen, benzene, and toxics emissions performance, because this
gasoline will not be VOC-controlled. These parameters are regulated
because of toxic pollution concerns, and have the relatively long
averaging period of twelve months because the threat of toxic pollution
is long-term, cumulative in nature. EPA believes that combining the
limited volume of 1994-gasoline with 1995-gasoline is consistent with
the long-term averaging approach to toxics generally.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
211(k)(10)(C) does not limit the toxic air pollutant benzene to exhaust
benzene. However, as stated, EPA is only promulgating regulations
applicable to exhaust benzene. Nonexhaust benzene emissions will be
effectively controlled by the summertime volatility controls applicable
to conventional gasoline.<SUP>73 The sum of the baseline exhaust
emissions of each of the five toxics is the value that must not be
exceeded by the sum of the exhaust emissions of these toxic pollutants
due to a refiner's or importer's annual average conventional gasoline.
132.
\7\3 No credit can be taken nor penalties received under the
anti-dumping program for nonexhaust benzene reductions, or
increases. Nonexhaust benzene emissions decrease due to RVP
reductions, which are a VOC reduction strategy already considered
under the anti-dumping program as the reason for not explicitly
controlling VOC emissions.
11.
\7\4 The statutory baseline gasoline for anti-dumping purposes
is discussed further in paragraph C.3.e of this section.
import gasoline into the U.S. in 1990, but who does so after 1994,
would also have the anti-dumping statutory baseline as its individual
baseline. EPA proposed that if a U.S. importer is also a refiner and
imported 75 percent or more of the 1990 gasoline production of a
refinery into the U.S. in 1990, it could determine a baseline for that
refinery using the three data types described in paragraph 3 below.
Most commenters agreed with EPA's overall proposal concerning
importers. Some felt, however, that the ``75 percent'' criteria was
self-selecting--only those importer/refiners with higher baseline
emissions relative to the statutory baseline would choose to develop an
individual baseline. Those importer/refiners with relatively low
baseline emissions would use the statutory baseline, and thus dumping
could result, since they would be complying with a baseline which was
less stringent than one based on their own 1990 gasoline quality. EPA
agrees that ``dumping'' could occur, but expects it to be minimal since
few importing refineries are likely to meet the ``75 percent''
criteria. Nonetheless, EPA is requiring that all importers which are
also refiners utilize Method 1-, 2- and 3-type data to determine the
individual baselines of their refineries which meet the 75 percent
criteria.
One commenter claimed that location, not percent of production
imported, dictates enforceability. However, EPA believes that
enforcement of a non-domestic refinery is governed less by location and
more by the willingness of the company and/or country to open its
refinery for compliance visitations. Another commenter specifically
stated that Canadian refineries should be treated the same as domestic
refineries for the purpose of establishing baselines. As stated, EPA
believes that it will be relatively easy to accurately determine the
quality of the gasoline produced in 1990 at a refinery outside of the
U.S., for sale to the U.S., if a significant amount (i.e., 75 percent)
of the production of the refinery came to the U.S. Independent of where
the refinery is located, if less than this amount was imported, it will
be more difficult to combine information on refinery operations and
blendstock and gasoline data (i.e., Methods 2 and 3-type data) and
allocate such information so as to establish the quality of the
refinery's 1990 gasoline which was sent to the U.S.
Some commenters felt that an importer should be allowed to use all
available 1990 and later data to establish a baseline and have its
baseline verified by an auditor. However, as stated in the proposals,
EPA believes that significant dumping could occur if post-1990 data is
allowed since that data may not represent the importer's 1990 gasoline.
EPA is thus promulgating this essentially provision as proposed.
d. Requirements for exporters of gasoline. EPA's proposals did not
explicitly discuss whether gasoline exported from the U.S. in 1990
would be included in individual baseline determinations. However,
parameters E200 and E300, the percent evaporated at 200 deg.F and 300
deg.F, respectively. Although these two fuel parameters replace T50 and
T90, respectively, in the complex model, T90 baseline values are still
required to be determined for use prior to mandatory complex model use.
EPA expects E200 and E300 values to be determined directly from
gasoline or blendstock data, even if distillation information has to be
regraphed. If such a determination is not possible, E200 and E300
values may be estimated from otherwise acceptable T50 and T90 data
using the equations specified in the regulations. Thus, this addition
will not void any data collected under the proposed criteria.
e. Anti-dumping statutory baseline. As mentioned earlier, in some
cases a blender or importer may not be able, or be allowed, to develop
an individual baseline from its own data. In that case, the refiner or
importer would have the statutory baseline as its individual baseline.
Although the compliance period for conventional gasoline is annual (as
discussed in the proposals and as described in section IX), emissions
determined using the complex models are determined on a summer and
winter basis. Thus, there are separate anti-dumping summer and winter
baseline fuel parameters, which are the statutory summer baseline
specified in the Act, and the winter baseline determined by EPA as
required by the Act. Few comments were received concerning the proposed
annual average statutory baseline (which is a weighted average of the
statutory summer and winter baselines, as discussed in the proposals).
None of the comments led to a change in the annual average baseline
fuel parameter values.
4. Data Collection and Testing Requirements
a. Sampling requirements. In the February 26, 1993 proposal, EPA
proposed minimum sampling requirements in order to ensure that enough
gasoline or blendstock samples were taken from which to develop a
representative baseline. Namely, for Method 1-type data, at least half
of the batches (by number of batches, not volume), or shipments if not
batch blended, in a calendar month shall have been tested for a
particular parameter. For Methods 2 and 3-type data, at least weekly
sampling of continuous blendstock streams and, if blendstocks are
produced on a batch basis, sampling of at least half of the batches of
each blendstock produced in a month is required.
Many refining industry commenters protested this proposal claiming
that they had sampled based on the April 16, 1992 proposal requiring
``sufficient'' sampling, and that EPA's more specific requirement could
void data collected, and the time and money spent. EPA agrees that the
sufficient frequency of sampling may vary according to circumstance
(such as the degree of variation in operating conditions), and is
modifying its latest proposal by accepting, under certain
circumstances, data which does not meet the requirements specified
above. However, if less than the minimum data is used, the refiner must
document, and the auditor verify, why the data is less than the minimum
requirements and why it is sufficient in quantity and quality to use in
the baseline determination. EPA retains the right to reject use of less
than the minimum data if the documentation is incomplete or the
justification not technically sound. In all cases,<SUP>75 all available
samples must be analyzed and the results used in baseline determination
if more than the minimum number of samples are available.
certain NO<INF>X emissions increases be offset, but did not specify how
to deal with baseline volumes, leaving it to EPA's discretion.
Additionally, the reason for allowing NO<INF>X emissions to be
evaluated on a nonoxygenate basis in the first place is so as not to
penalize refiners whose emissions increase due to oxygenate use. It is
possible that restricting baseline volumes by excluding oxygenate
volumes could penalize some refiners. Thus, it would be inappropriate
for EPA to restrict the applicability of the individual baseline to the
nonoxygenated gasoline volume.
f. Work-in-progress. EPA proposed criteria for allowing a work-inprogress
(WIP) adjustment on April 16, 1992. In the February 26, 1993
proposal, EPA expanded the proposed criteria in several areas. A WIP
adjustment allows the refiner to modify its baseline volumes and fuel
parameter values (which affect emissions) to account for the WIP. A
more detailed discussion of the rationale and background concerning WIP
adjustments may be found in the RIA.
Several comments reiterated a concern expressed in the regulatory
negotiation discussions that a WIP adjustment should be a limited
exception, structured so that few refiners would qualify. EPA agrees
that the criteria for a WIP adjustment should be fairly stringent, as
the adjustment was intended only for those for whom a significant
investment had already been made in order to comply with another
government mandate. Additionally, a broad program of adjustments could
indicate that EPA exceeded its equitable discretion under Alabama
Power, as discussed in the RIA. Nonetheless, most commenters supported
allowing WIP adjustments for significant differences between unadjusted
and WIP-adjusted values of exhaust benzene emissions, exhaust toxics
emissions, NO<INF>X emissions, sulfur, olefin or T90, instead of just
exhaust benzene emissions as proposed in April 1992. A few commenters
suggested reducing the threshold comparison criteria (between WIPunadjusted
and adjusted values) of 5 percent for emissions and 25
percent for sulfur, T90 and olefins. EPA agreed with the substance of
these comments and is reducing the thresholds between WIP and non-WIP
values. A discussion of the proposed and final threshold criteria is
presented in the RIA. EPA's final threshold values under this
requirement are that WIP-unadjusted and adjusted emissions values must
differ by 2.5 percent, and sulfur, olefins and T90 values by 10
percent. Again, only one of the thresholds has to be met in order to
meet this requirement.
A few comments were received regarding the requirement that the WIP
be associated with other regulatory requirements, specifically, the
Auditor Qualifications
EPA proposed specific criteria for determining the independence and
technical capability of the auditor (and where applicable, the
auditor's organization and/or certain persons working with or for the
auditor). A few commenters suggested minor changes in the proposed
criteria as discussed in the RIA, and some of these recommendations are
incorporated in the final rule.
9.
EPA also proposed that the auditor retained by a refiner or
10. importer may also have developed the baseline for the same refiner or
11. importer as long as all other auditor qualification requirements were
12. met. Several commenters who addressed this issue agreed that the
13. auditor should be allowed to also be the baseline preparer, mostly from
14. a cost savings point-of-view. Other commenters pointed out that the
15. independence of the review would be lost. While this may diminish to
16. some extent the value of an independent audit, the cost and time
17. savings are relevant considerations. In balancing these concerns, EPA
18. is allowing the auditor to also have prepared the baseline.
19.
20. Auditor Certification
21. EPA proposed two options by which potential auditors could be
22. approved by EPA as qualified to audit baselines. One option involved
23. precertification by EPA; under this option, a statement of the
24. auditor's qualifications would be submitted to EPA. EPA would
25. officially certify an auditor, or if no comment were received from EPA
26. within a specified time, the auditor would be considered certified by
27. default. The other option required the refiner or importer to ensure
28. that the auditor is qualified, and to provide a qualification statement
29. for the auditor with the baseline submission. In this case, the auditor
30. would not be pre-certified by EPA.
31.
32. Most commenters agreed with allowing both options. One commenter
33. thought that EPA should notify auditors of approval rather than letting
34. them be certified by default, and that they should be pre-certified.
35. EPA believes that, in most cases, it will respond in some form, not
36. necessarily approval or disapproval, prior to the end of the allowable
37. time period. In the proposal, EPA allowed the auditor to be certified
38. by default after 30 days. However, EPA now believes that it should not
39. allow an auditor to be certified by default until 45 days after
40. application or today's date, whichever is later, because of possible
41. delays, e.g., mail delivery, in receiving an auditor's qualification
42. statement.
43.
44. EPA had also proposed that within thirty (30) days of hiring a
45. baseline auditor or today's date, whichever is later, each refiner and
46. importer must inform EPA of the name, organization address and
47. telephone number of the auditor hired. EPA now believes this
48. information is not critical and thus is eliminating this requirement.
49. This information is only required in the baseline submission.
50.
51. Auditor Responsibilities
52. The major issues raised by commenters concerning auditor
53. responsibilities was whether the auditor was to verify the baseline
54. determination or recalculate the baseline itself. EPA agrees that the
55. auditor should independently verify the baseline determination, and is
56. not required to develop a second baseline determination. However, the
57. auditor must take whatever action is necessary to ensure that all
58. baseline submission requirements are fulfilled. EPA is also requiring
59. that a refiner's baseline submission include a statement prepared and
60. signed by the primary analyst stating that, to the best of its
61. knowledge, it has thoroughly reviewed the sampling methodology and
62. baseline calculations, and that they meet the requirements and
63. intentions of the rulemaking, and that it agrees with the final
64. baseline parameter and emission values listed in the baseline
65. submission. EPA is not requiring auditors to submit (to EPA) an audit
66. plan prior to beginning the baseline verification process.
67.
E. Baseline Submission and Approval
1. Timing
2.
Few comments were received concerning the timing of baseline
3. submissions, and EPA is promulgating its requirements that baselines be
4. submitted to EPA within 6 months of today's date and that baselines
5. determined using data collected after today be submitted to EPA by
6. September 1, 1994. EPA will consider petitions for an extension of
7. these deadlines, however, submitters should take note that late
8. submissions could cause delays in receiving EPA decisions on approval
9. of their baselines. EPA is promulgating such timing requirements in
10. order to give the industry sufficient time to generate and audit
11. individual baselines. EPA is well aware of the need for expeditious
12. review of submitted baselines, and encourages submission of baselines
13. as soon as possible after today.
14.
15.
16. Petitions
17. In many situations in the baseline determination, a refiner or
18. importer is required to petition EPA in order to be allowed to account
19. for a variance from a requirement. In other situations, the refiner or
20. importer is required to ``show'' that it meets certain criteria. In
21. either of these situations, approval will be given by the Director of
22. the EPA's Office of Mobile Sources, or designee. As will be discussed
23. below, all petitions must be included in the baseline submission--in
24. fact, in most cases, baseline calculations have to be determined both
25. with and without the requested variance, since the outcome of the
26. request would be unknown. Although not previously proposed, EPA is
27. allowing petitions and ``showings'' to be submitted prior to the
28. baseline submission deadline although an early decision on the request
29. is not guaranteed. Nonetheless, the baseline submission must be
30. submitted by the applicable deadline, whether or not EPA has decided to
31. approve or disapprove the request.
32.
33.
34. Submission Requirements
35. Based on comments to its proposals, EPA has determined that a
36. number of its proposed baseline submission requirements were not
37. pertinent to a baseline determination. EPA is thus requiring that, at
38. minimum, the information described in Sec. 80.93 be included in the
39. baseline submission. Information on crudes and refinery unit operations
40. is still required because EPA may wish to evaluate baseline submissions
41. using a refinery flow simulation system. EPA plans to develop a sample
42. baseline submission document which should be available soon after
43. today.
44.
45. Although not previously required in the baseline submission, the
46. blendstock-to-gasoline ratio for each calendar year 1990 through 1993
47. must now be included. The blendstock-to-gasoline ratio is discussed
48. further in Section IX, and is defined in Sec. 80.102. Determination of
49. this ratio is also subject to auditor verification, as is the entire
50. baseline submission.
51.
52. EPA may require submittal of more extensive data if such data is
53. required to aid EPA in its review of the baseline submission, or if
54. discrepancies in any part of the baseline submission are found.
55. Additional information that may be useful to EPA in its evaluation of
56. the baseline submission may be included, at the refiner's discretion.
57. EPA is slightly expanding the content required in the statement
58. signed by the chief executive officer which is included in the baseline
59. submission. The statement must state that the data submitted is the
60. extent of the data available for the determination of each of the
61. required baseline fuel parameter values, that sampling methodology and
62. baseline calculations meet the requirements and intentions of the
63. rulemaking, and that the final baseline parameter and emission values
64. listed represent its 1990 gasoline, to the best of his or her
65. knowledge.
66.
67. If a refiner or importer desires that certain information in the
68. baseline submission not be publicly available, it must a assert a claim
69. of confidentiality, as discussed below, and include this request in the
70. baseline submission.
71.
72.
73. Baseline Approval
74. EPA will approve baselines and upon approval publish, in the
75. Federal Register, the standards for each applicable gasoline producing
76. or importing facility of a refiner, blender or importer. Because a
77. party's baseline will become its standard for compliance with the antidumping
78. and early reformulated gasoline requirements, EPA believes the
79. standard should be publicly known, and as discussed below, there are no
80. compelling reasons not to publish such information. Additionally, such
81. standards are not entitled to confidential treatment (40 CFR 2.301(e),
82. special confidentiality rules applicable to Clean Air Act cases). Thus,
83. upon Agency approval of a baseline, the baseline exhaust benzene,
84. exhaust toxics and NO<INF>X emissions values and 125 percent of the
85. baseline sulfur, olefins and T90 values shall be published. This
86. information is required on a refinery or facility basis because the
87. reformulated gasoline requirements are on a refinery-basis, and because
88. this information needs to be known in the event a refinery changes
89. owners.
90.
91. While EPA previously proposed that it would publish baseline
92. parameter values by refinery, it now believes that no substantive
93. comments could result from publishing such information because of the
94. complexity of the baseline determination. Additionally, EPA realizes
95. that certain aspects of the baseline determination must necessarily
96. remain confidential in order to prevent serious, negative competitive
97. effects. Thus EPA is allowing any person or organization providing
98. information to EPA in connection with the determination of a baseline,
99. including establishing a baseline or investigating possible baseline
100. discrepancies, to assert that some or all of the information submitted,
101. except the baseline emissions or parameter values which are the
102. standard for a refiner, refinery or importer, is entitled to
103. confidential treatment as provided in 40 CFR part 2, subpart 2. Such
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
The final rule differs from the earlier proposals primarily in the
area of blendstock accounting. These changes are discussed in greater
detail below.
Refiners and importers must establish individual 1990 baselines in
order to compare the emissions characteristics of gasoline they
produced or imported in 1990 with the emissions characteristics of
conventional gasoline produced or imported in 1995 and later. See
section VIII for a discussion of the methods required for development
of an individual baseline. The baseline for refiners who were not in
business in 1990, and in certain cases for other importers and refinerblenders,
is the statutory baseline found at Sec. 80.91(c)(5) of the
regulations.
Refiners who operate more than one refinery have the option of
demonstrating compliance with the anti-dumping provisions for each
refinery separately, or the refiner may group its refineries and show
compliance for each group separately provided that each refinery's
performance is accounted for either separately or as part of a refinery
group. The refiner's refinery-grouping election may not be changed
after the initial election. Blendstock tracking and accounting as
discussed below, must be determined in accordance with the same
refinery grouping as chosen for compliance purposes.
The final rule has three separate sets of compliance standards for
determining compliance with the anti-dumping requirements, however,
only one set applies to a refiner or importer at any one time. These
are the Simple Model standards and Optional Complex Model standards,
that apply in 1995, 1996, and 1997; and the Mandatory Complex Model
standards that apply in 1998 and thereafter. All three sets of
standards require refiners and importers to average certain properties
of conventional gasoline and demonstrate compliance with prescribed
standards, which in some cases are actual fuel properties and in others
are emissions products calculated from specific fuel properties.<SUP>79
In the case of both the annual comparisons before 1998, and the
average comparisons beginning in 1998, if the compliance period ratio
exceeds the baseline ratio by ten percent or more special blendstock
accounting must be carried out by the refiner, unless certain
exemptions are met or the refiner has been granted a waiver by
EPA.<SUP>82 These exceptions to blendstock accounting are discussed
more fully below.
As a result, EPA has not included in the final rule any provisions
that would limit the volumes of blendstocks that are produced and sold,
except for the provisions intended to address the baseline-shifting
strategy.
B. Inclusion of Oxygenate in Anti-Dumping Compliance Calculations
Oxygenates are included in the set of products that may be included
in anti-dumping compliance calculations under certain conditions,
because the oxygenate used in the production of conventional gasoline
alters the results of the anti-dumping compliance calculations. As a
result, where a refiner or importer is able to establish that oxygenate
is in fact added to gasoline or blendstock produced or imported by that
party, it is appropriate to allow the refiner or importer to include
the oxygenate in compliance calculations. This approach to oxygenate
use under anti-dumping is consistent with the proposals, but the final
rule clarifies the manner in which parties must demonstrate that
oxygenate is in fact used.
In the SNPRM 92 and SNPRM 93, EPA proposed that the inclusion of
oxygenate volume in compliance calculations by refiners and importers
would be optional, except as required in the calculation of other
exhaust emission products under the applicable model. These proposals
did not, however, specify the manner in which the oxygenate use showing
must be made. EPA believes the provisions included in the final rule
dealing with the oxygenate use showing during compliance periods is
necessary in order to ensure conventional gasoline emissions are
accurately reported.<SUP>84
the oxygenate blending operation, using base gasoline that was produced
or imported by the refiner or importer. If the volume percent oxygenate
found through sampling and testing is inconsistent with the refiner's
or importer's claimed oxygenate volume, the refiner or importer must
resolve the inconsistency in order to include the oxygenate in its
compliance calculations. EPA believes the sampling and testing should
be unannounced, should occur at different times during the portion of
the averaging period when oxygenate is blended, and that the overall
frequency is dependent on the situation. The sampling and testing
should increase in frequency as the oxygenate volume increases, with
oxygenate blenders who are less sophisticated, or where the refiner has
any reason to question the oxygenate blending operation.
Inspections by refiners and importers should be calculated to
determine if the oxygenate blender is complying with the procedures
included in the contract with the oxygenate blender, such as quality
assurance by the blender.
EPA believes that audits must occur at least annually, and more
frequently if there is any reason for the refiner or importer to
question the oxygenate blending operation. EPA further believes that
audits must include, at a minimum, review of records that reflect the
types and volumes of oxygenate purchased and used by the downstream
blender to ensure they are consistent with the refiner's or importer's
claims. In a case where the oxygenate blender is using base gasoline
that is produced or imported by more than one refiner or importer, the
audit must distinguish the oxygenate blended with the different
refiner's or importer's base gasoline. In a case where the base
gasoline is fungibly mixed with gasolines from other refiners or
importers prior to its receipt by the downstream blender, the audit
must account for the portion of the fungible mixture that is the
gasoline produced by the refiner or imported by the importer.
As a result of the complexities inherent in tracking gasoline
through the fungible distribution system, EPA believes in most cases it
will be impracticable for refiners or importers to effectively monitor
downstream oxygenate blending with gasoline that is shipped fungibly,
and as a result the refiner or importer normally would be precluded
from including the oxygenate in compliance calculations.
In any case where the downstream oxygenate use claims by a refiner
or importer are not supported by the inspections, sampling and testing,
or audits, or where EPA is able to establish that the oxygenate use
claims by the refiner or importer are incorrect, the refiner or
importer would not be allowed to include the oxygenate in compliance
calculations. If the error is discovered subsequent to the conclusion
of an averaging period, moreover, the refiner or importer would be
required to recalculate its compliance calculations for the averaging
period ab initio without including the oxygenate, even if this
that with the addition of 10 vol% ethanol this blendstock will become
87 octane gasoline. However, because 85 octane gasoline is sold in the
mountain states in the winter, 85 octane blendstock meets the
definition of ``gasoline'' and is not a ``blendstock'' under the
definition of that term even when it is blended with ethanol.
the rate of 10 vol% FCC naphtha, 25 vol% reformate, and 65 vol% base
gasoline. A partial list of the properties of these blendstocks, as
determined by the blender-refiner through sampling and testing, are as
follows:
FCC
naphtha
Antidumping
Reformate statutory
gasoline
Aromatics (vol%)....................
13.5
Olefins (vol%)......................
39.8
Sulfur (ppm)........................ 289
Specific gravity...........
0.753
31.1
28.6
1.0
10.8
10
338
0.801
0.742
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Middlesex County
New Haven County
New London County
Tolland County
Windham County
Delaware
Areas Classified as Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas
1. Kent County
2.
3. New Castle County
4.
Areas Classified as Marginal Ozone Nonattainment Areas
1. Sussex County
2.
District of Columbia
Areas Classified as Serious Ozone Nonattainment Areas
1. Washington (entire area)
2.
Kentucky
Areas Classified as Moderate Ozone Nonattainment Areas
1. Boone County
2.
3. Bullitt County (part)
4.
5. Campbell County
6.
7. Jefferson County
8.
9. Kenton County
10.
11. Oldham County (part)
12.
Maine
Areas Classified as Moderate Ozone Nonattainment Areas
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Androscoggin County
Cumberland County
Kennebec County
Knox County
Lincoln County
Sagadahoc County
York County
8.
9. Harford County
10.
11. Howard County
12.
Areas Classified as Serious Ozone Nonattainment Areas
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Calvert County
Charles County
Frederick County
Montgomery County
Prince Georges County
Barnstable County
Berkshire County
Bristol County
Dukes County
Essex County
Franklin County
Hampden County
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Hampshire County
Middlesex County
Nantucket County
Norfolk County
Plymouth County
Suffolk County
Worcester County
New Hampshire
Areas Classified as Serious Ozone Nonattainment Areas
1. Hillsborough County (part)<SUP>89
2.
3.
\8\9Part of Hillsborough County is classified as serious, the
other part as marginal.
3. Strafford County
Areas Classified as Marginal Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Bergen County
Burlington County
Camden County
Cumberland County
Essex County
Gloucester County
Hudson County
Hunterdon County
Mercer County
Middlesex County
Monmouth County
Morris County
Ocean County
Passaic County
Salem County
Somerset County
Sussex County
2. Kings County
3. Nassau County
4. New York County
5. Queens County
6. Richmond County
7. Rockland County
8. Suffolk County
9. Westchester County
Areas Classified as Marginal Nonattainment Areas
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Albany County
Dutchess County
Erie County
Essex County<SUP>92
10.
\9\2This area is a rural transport area.
5. Greene County
6. Jefferson County
7. Montgomery County
8. Niagara County
9. Rensselaer County
10. Saratoga County
11. Schenectady County
Pennsylvania
Areas Classified as Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas
1. Bucks County<SUP>93
2.
3.
4.
\9\3These counties are already defined as ``covered areas'' and
are subjected to the federal reformulated fuel program under Section
211(k)(10)(D).
2. Chester County
3. Delaware County
4. Montgomery County
5. Philadelphia County
Allegheny County
Armstrong County
Beaver County
Berks County
Butler County
Fayette County
Washington County
Westmoreland County
Adams County
Blair County
Cambria County
Carbon County
Columbia County
Cumberland County
Dauphin County
Erie County
Lackawanna County
Lancaster County
Lebanon County
Lehigh County
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Luzerne County
Mercer County
Monroe County
Northampton County
Perry County
Somerset County
Wyoming County
York County
Bristol County
Kent County
Newport County
Providence County
Washington County
Texas--Houston/Galveston area
Area Classified As Moderate Ozone Nonattainment Area
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Collin County
Dallas County
Denton County
Tarrant County
8.
Virginia
Areas Classified as Serious Ozone Nonattainment Areas
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Alexandria
Arlington County
Fairfax
Fairfax County
Falls Church
Loudoun County
Manassas
Manassas Park
Prince William County
Stafford County
Chesapeake
Hampton
James City County
Newport News
Norfolk
Poquoson
Portsmouth
Smyth County (part)<SUP>94
18.
\9\4This is a rural transport area.
9. Suffolk
10. Virginia Beach
11. Williamsburg
12. York County
Vermont and portions of other areas in Pennsylvania and New
Hampshire have formally requested to opt-in to the reformulated
gasoline program, although the designated areas in these states are
categorized as unclassified/attainment. Because of statutory
limitations, attainment areas will not be allowed to opt-in to the
program, with a limited exception given to some areas in established
ozone transport regions as authorized by section 184 of the Act. The
reader is referred to the RIA for further discussion of the statutory
limitations.
Other ozone nonattainment areas that are not listed herein may also
opt-in to the reformulated gasoline program as permitted by section
211(k)(6), under constraints such as sufficient lead-time domestic fuel
availability.
The Agency has found that the reformulated gasoline and antidumping
regulations may possibly have some economic impact on a
substantial number of small refiners. However, these regulations may
not significantly affect gasoline blenders, terminal operators, service
stations and ethanol blenders under the same EPA criteria. Small
business entities are not required by the Clean Air Act to manufacture
reformulated gasoline. Since most small refiners are located in the
mountain states or in California, which has its own (more stringent)
reformulated gasoline program, the vast majority of small refiners are
unaffected by the federal reformulated gasoline requirements.
Furthermore, all businesses (both large and small) maintain the option
to produce conventional gasoline to be sold in areas not obligated by
the Act to receive reformulated gasoline or those areas which have not
chosen to opt into the program.
All refiners will be affected by the anti-dumping requirements,
which are less stringent than those for the reformulated gasoline
portion of the program. The anti-dumping regulations affecting
conventional gasoline are not expected to disproportionately impact
small refiners of conventional gasoline.
In addition, all refiners have the option to use either the simple
or complex model during the first years of the reformulated gasoline
program. Refiners have greater flexibility under the complex model than
under the simple model (which focuses primarily on volatility control)
in choosing the least-cost method of compliance.
The component of the reformulated gasoline program most likely to
unfavorably impact small entities is the fundamental necessity that
reformulated gasoline meet more stringent emission standards and thus
processing requirements. The Agency is unaware of any alternative
options which might relieve the regulatory burden on small entities
while simultaneously maintaining the program benefits required by the
statute. Exempting small refiners from the reformulated gasoline
regulations would result in the failure of meeting CAA performance
standards, which is illegal. All reformulated gasoline is required to
meet the same performance and compositional standards. Additionally,
enforcement of a reformulated gasoline program (with exemptions or less
stringent standards for some fuel producers), in-use, would be
virtually impossible to enforce due to the inherent nature of the
****
(ee) Reformulated gasoline means any gasoline whose formulation has
been certified under Sec. 80.40, which meets each of the standards and
requirements prescribed under Sec. 80.41, and which contains less than
the maximum concentration of the marker specified in Sec. 80.82 that is
allowed for reformulated gasoline under Sec. 80.82.
(ff) Conventional gasoline means any gasoline which has not been
certified under Sec. 80.40.
(gg) Batch of reformulated gasoline means a quantity of
reformulated gasoline which is homogeneous with regard to those
properties which are specified for reformulated gasoline certification.
(hh) Covered area means each of the geographic areas specified in
Sec. 80.70 in which only reformulated gasoline may be sold or dispensed
to ultimate consumers.
(ii) Reformulated gasoline credit means the unit of measure for the
paper transfer of oxygen or benzene content resulting from reformulated
gasoline which contains more than 2.1 weight percent of oxygen or less
than 0.95 volume percent benzene.
(jj) Oxygenate means any substance which, when added to gasoline,
increases the oxygen content of that gasoline. Lawful use of any of the
substances or any combination of these substances requires that they be
``substantially similar'' under section 211(f)(1) of the Clean Air Act,
or be permitted under a waiver granted by the Administrator under the
authority of section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act.
emission models.
80.51 Vehicle test procedures.
80.52 Vehicle preconditioning.
80.53-80.54 [Reserved]
80.55 Measurement methods for benzene and 1,3-butadiene
80.56 Measurement methods for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.
80.57-80.58 [Reserved]
80.59 General test fleet requirements for vehicle testing.
80.60 Test fleet requirements for exhaust emission testing.
80.61 [Reserved]
80.62 Vehicle test procedures to place vehicles in emitter group
sub-fleets.
80.63-80.64 [Reserved]
80.65 General requirements for refiners, importers, and oxygenate
blenders.
80.66 Calculation of reformulated gasoline properties.
80.67 Compliance on average.
80.68 Compliance surveys.
80.69 Requirements for downstream oxygenate blending.
80.70 Covered areas.
80.71 Descriptions of VOC-control regions.
80.72 [Reserved]
80.73 Inability to produce conforming gasoline in extraordinary
circumstances.
80.74 Record keeping requirements.
80.75 Reporting requirements.
80.76 Registration of refiners, importers or oxygenate blender.
80.77 Product transfer documentation.
80.78 Controls and prohibitions on reformulated gasoline.
80.79 Liability for violations of the prohibited activities.
80.80 Penalties.
80.81 Enforcement exemptions for California gasoline.
80.82 Conventional gasoline marker. [Reserved]
80.83-80.89 [Reserved]
Subpart E--Anti-Dumping
80.90 Conventional gasoline baseline emissions determination.
80.91 Individual baseline determination.
80.92 Baseline auditor requirements.
80.93 Individual baseline submission and approval.
80.94-80.100 [Reserved]
80.101 Standards applicable to refiners and importers.
80.102 Controls applicable to blendstocks.
80.103 Registration of refiners and importers.
80.104 Record keeping requirements.
80.105 Reporting requirements.
35.1
Gasoline designated for VOC-Control Region 2................ <gr-thne
15.6
Toxic air pollutants emissions performance reduction (percent) <gr-thne
15.0
NO<INF>X emissions performance reduction (percent)................. <gr-thne
0.0
Oxygen content (percent, by weight)........................... <gr-thne
2.0
Benzene (percent, by volume).................................. <ls-thne
1.00
(d) Phase I complex model averaged standards. The Phase I ``complex
model'' standards for compliance when achieved on average are as
follows:
Phase I--Complex Model Averaged Standards
VOC emissions performance reduction (percent):
Gasoline designated for VOC-Control Region 1:
Standard.................................................. <gr-thne
36.6
Per-Gallon Minimum........................................ <ls-thne
32.6
Gasoline designated for VOC-Control Region 2:
Standard.................................................. <gr-thne
17.1
Per-Gallon Minimum........................................ <gr-thne
13.1
Toxics air pollutants emissions performance reduction
(percent).................................................... <gr-thne
16.5
NO<INF>X emissions performance reduction (percent):
Standard.................................................. <gr-thne
1.5
<gr-thne
<gr-thne
(k) Effect of VOC survey failure. (1) On each occasion during 1995
or 1996 that a covered area fails a simple model VOC emissions
reduction survey conducted pursuant to Sec. 80.68, the RVP requirements
for that covered area beginning in the year following the failure shall
be adjusted to be more stringent as follows:
(i) The required average RVP level shall be decreased by an
additional 0.1 psi; and
(ii) The maximum RVP level for each gallon of averaged gasoline
shall be decreased by an additional 0.1 psi.
(2) On each occasion that a covered area fails a complex model VOC
emissions reduction survey conducted pursuant to Sec. 80.68, or fails a
simple model VOC emissions reduction survey conducted pursuant to
Sec. 80.68 during 1997, the VOC emissions performance standard for that
covered area beginning in the year following the failure shall be
adjusted to be more stringent as follows:
(i) The required average VOC emissions reduction shall be increased
by an additional 1.0%; and
(ii) The minimum VOC emissions reduction, for each gallon of
averaged gasoline, shall be increased by an additional 1.0%.
(3) In the event that a covered area for which required VOC
emissions reductions have been made more stringent passes all VOC
emissions reduction surveys in two consecutive years, the averaging
standards VOC emissions reduction for that covered area beginning in
the year following the second year of passed survey series shall be
made less stringent as follows:
(i) The required average VOC emissions reduction shall be decreased
by 1.0%; and
(ii) The minimum VOC emissions reduction shall be decreased by
1.0%.
(4) In the event that a covered area for which the required VOC
emissions reductions have been made less stringent fails a subsequent
VOC emissions reduction survey:
(i) The required average VOC emission reductions for that covered
area beginning in the year following this subsequent failure shall be
made more stringent by increasing the required average and the minimum
VOC emissions reduction by 1.0%; and
(ii) The required VOC emission reductions for that covered area
thereafter shall not be made less stringent regardless of the results
of subsequent VOC emissions reduction surveys.
(l) Effect of toxics survey failure. (1) On each occasion during
1995 or 1996 that a covered area fails a simple model toxics emissions
reduction survey series, conducted pursuant to Sec. 80.68, the simple
model toxics emissions reduction requirement for that covered area
beginning in the year following the year of the failure is made more
stringent by increasing the average toxics emissions reduction by an
additional 1.0%.
(2) On each occasion that a covered area fails a complex model
toxics emissions reduction survey series, conducted pursuant to
Sec. 80.68, or fails a simple model toxics emissions reduction survey
series conducted pursuant to Sec. 80.68 during 1997, the complex model
toxics emissions reduction requirement for that covered area beginning
in the year following the year of the failure is made more stringent by
increasing the average toxics emissions reduction by an additional
1.0%.
(3) In the event that a covered area for which the toxics emissions
standard has been made more stringent passes all toxics emissions
survey series in two consecutive years, the averaging standard for
toxics emissions reductions for that covered area beginning in the year
following the second year of passed survey series shall be made less
stringent by decreasing the average toxics emissions reduction by 1.0%.
(4) In the event that a covered area for which the toxics emissions
reduction standard has been made less stringent fails a subsequent
toxics emissions reduction survey series:
(i) The standard for toxics emissions reduction for that covered
area beginning in the year following this subsequent failure shall be
made more stringent by increasing the average toxics emissions
reduction by 1.0%; and
(ii) The standard for toxics emissions reduction for that covered
area thereafter shall not be made less stringent regardless of the
results of subsequent toxics emissions reduction surveys.
(m) Effect of NO<INF>X survey failure. (1) On each occasion that a
covered area fails a NO<INF>X emissions reduction survey conducted
pursuant to Sec. 80.68, except in the case Phase II complex model
NO<INF>X standards for VOC-controlled gasoline, the NO<INF>X emissions
reduction requirements for that covered area beginning in the year
following the failure shall be adjusted to be more stringent as
follows:
(i) The required average NO<INF>X emissions reduction shall be
increased by an additional 1.0%; and
(ii) The minimum NO<INF>X emissions reduction, for each gallon of
averaged gasoline, shall be increased by an additional 1.0%.
(2) In the event that a covered area for which required NO<INF>X
emissions reductions have been made more stringent passes all NO<INF>X
emissions reduction surveys in two consecutive years, the averaging
standards for NO<INF>X emissions reduction for that covered area
beginning in the year following the second year of passed survey series
shall be made less stringent as follows:
(i) The required average NO<INF>X emissions reduction shall be
decreased by 1.0%; and
(ii) The minimum NO<INF>X emissions reduction shall be decreased by
1.0%.
(3) In the event that a covered area for which the required
NO<INF>X emissions reductions have been made less stringent fails a
subsequent NO<INF>X emissions reduction survey:
(i) The required average NO<INF>X emission reductions for that
covered area beginning in the year following this subsequent failure
shall be made more stringent by increasing the required average and the
minimum NO<INF>X emissions reduction by 1.0%; and
(ii) The required NO<INF>X emission reductions for that covered
area thereafter shall not be made less stringent regardless of the
results of subsequent NO<INF>X emissions reduction surveys.
(n) Effect of benzene survey failure. (1) On each occasion that a
covered area fails a benzene content survey series, conducted pursuant
to Sec. 80.68, the benzene content standards for that covered area
beginning in the year following the year of the failure shall be made
more stringent as follows:
(i) The average benzene content shall be decreased by 0.05% by
volume; and
(ii) The maximum benzene content for each gallon of averaged
gasoline shall be decreased by 0.10% by volume.
(2) In the event that a covered area for which the benzene
standards have been made more stringent passes all benzene content
survey series conducted in two consecutive years, the benzene standards
for that covered area beginning in the year following the second year
of passed survey series shall be made less stringent as follows:
(i) The average benzene content shall be increased by 0.05% by
volume; and
(ii) The maximum benzene content for each gallon of averaged
gasoline shall be increased by 0.10% by volume.
(3) In the event that a covered area for which the benzene
standards have been made less stringent fails a subsequent benzene
content survey series:
(i) The standards for benzene content for that covered area
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
(2) The following states are included in PADD II:
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Tennessee
Wisconsin
(3) The following states are included in PADD III:
Alabama
Arkansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
New Mexico
Texas
(4) The following states are included in PADD IV:
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
(5) The following states are included in PADD V:
Arizona
California
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
Sec. 80.42 Simple emissions model.
(a) VOC emissions. The following equations shall comprise the
simple model for VOC emissions. The simple model for VOC emissions
shall be used only in determining toxics emissions:
Summer=The period of May 1 through September 15
Winter=The period of September 16 through April 30
EXHVOCS1=Exhaust nonmethane VOC emissions from the fuel in question, in
grams per mile, for VOC control region 1 during the summer period
EXHVOCS2=Exhaust nonmethane VOC emissions from the fuel in question, in
grams per mile, for VOC control region 2 during the summer period
EXHVOCW=Exhaust nonmethane VOC emissions from the fuel in question, in
grams per mile, for the winter period
EVPVOCS1=Evaporative VOC emissions from the fuel in question, in grams
per mile for VOC control region 1 during the summer period
EVPVOCS2=Evaporative VOC emissions from the fuel in question, in grams
per mile for VOC control region 2 during the summer period
RLVOCS1=Running loss VOC emissions from the fuel in question, in grams
per mile for VOC control region 1 during the summer period
RLVOCS2=Running loss VOC emissions from the fuel in question, in grams
per mile for VOC control region 2 during the summer period
REFVOCS1=Refueling VOC emissions from the fuel in question, in grams
per mile for VOC control region 1 during the summer period
REFVOCS2=Refueling VOC emissions from the fuel in question, in grams
per mile for VOC control region 2 during the summer period
OXCON=Oxygen content of the fuel in question, in terms of weight
percent (as measured under Sec. 80.46)
RVP=Reid vapor pressure of the fuel in question, in pounds per square
inch (psi)
(1) The following equations shall comprise the simple model for VOC
emissions in VOC Control Region 1 during the summer period:
EXHVOCS1=0.444 x (1-(0.127/2.7) x OXCON)
EVPVOCS1=0.7952-0.2461 x RVP +0.02293 x RVP x RVP
RLVOCS1=-0.734+0.1096 x RVP +0.002791 x RVP x RVP
REFVOCS1=0.04 x ((0.1667 x RVP)-0.45)
(2) The following equations shall comprise the simple model for VOC
emissions in VOC Control Region 2 during the summer period:
EXHVOCS2=0.444 x (1-(0.127/2.7) x OXCON)
EVPVOCS2=0.813-0.2393 x RVP +0.021239 x RVP x RVP
RLVOCS2=0.2963-0.1306 x RVP +0.016255 x RVP x RVP
REFVOCS2=0.04 x ((0.1667 x RVP)-0.45)
(3) The following equation shall comprise the simple model for VOC
emissions during the winter period:
EXHVOCW=0.656 x (1-(0.127/2.7) x OXCON)
(b) Toxics emissions. The following equations shall comprise the
simple model for toxics emissions:
EXHBEN=Exhaust benzene emissions from the fuel in question, in
milligrams per mile
BUTA - POM)/52.1
EXHBEN=[(1.884+0.949 x FBEN+0.113 x (FAROM-FBEN))/100] x 1000
x
EXHVOCS2
EVPBEN=HSBEN+DIBEN
HSBEN=FBEN x (EVPVOCS2 x 0.679) x 1000 x [(1.4448-(0.0684 x
MTBE/2.0)-(0.080274 x RVP))/100]
DIBEN=FBEN x (EVPVOCS2 x 0.321) x 1000 x [(1.3758-(0.0579 x
MTBE/2.0)-(0.080274 x RVP))/100]
RLBEN=FBEN x RLVOCS2 x 1000 x [(1.4448-(0.0684 x MTBE/
2.0)-(0.080274 x RVP))/100]
REFBEN=FBEN x REFVOCS2 x 1000 x [(1.3972-(0.0591 x MTBE/
2.0)-(0.081507 x RVP))/100]
BUTA=0.00556 x EXHVOCS2 x 1000
POM=3.15 x EXHVOCS2
Fuel parameter
Range
(2) The model given in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall
be effective from January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1997, unless
extended by action of the Administrator.
Secs. 80.43-80.44 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.45 Complex emissions model.
(a) Definition of terms. For the purposes of this section, the
following definitions shall apply:
Target fuel=The fuel which is being evaluated for its emissions
performance using the complex model
OXY=Oxygen content of the target fuel in terms of weight percent
SUL=Sulfur content of the target fuel in terms of parts per million by
weight
RVP=Reid Vapor Pressure of the target fuel in terms of pounds per
square inch
E200=200 deg.F distillation fraction of the target fuel in terms of
volume percent
E300=300 deg.F distillation fraction of the target fuel in terms of
volume percent
ARO=Aromatics content of the target fuel in terms of volume percent
BEN=Benzene content of the target fuel in terms of volume percent
OLE=Olefins content of the target fuel in terms of volume percent
MTB=Methyl tertiary butyl ether content of the target fuel in terms of
weight percent oxygen
ETB=Ethyl tertiary butyl ether content of the target fuel in terms of
weight percent oxygen
TAM=Tertiary amyl methyl ether content of the target fuel in terms of
weight percent oxygen
ETH=Ethanol content of the target fuel in terms of weight percent
oxygen
exp=The function that raises the number e (the base of the natural
logarithm) to the power in its domain
Phase I=The years 1995-1999
0.52
0.48
NO<INF>X
Summer
Winter
0.0
0.0
339
338
8.7
11.5
41.0
50.0
83.0
83.0
32.0
26.4
9.2
11.9
1.53
1.64
(3) The baseline mass emissions for VOC, NO<INF>X and toxics given
in Tables 3, 4 and 5 of this paragraph (b)(3) shall be used in
conjunction with the complex model during the appropriate Phase and
season:
Table 3.--Baseline Exhaust Emissions
Phase I
Phase II
------------------------------------------Exhaust pollutant
Summer Winter Summer
(mg/mile) (mg/mile) (mg/mile) Winter
(mg/mile)
VOC......................... 446
660
907
1341
NO<INF>X......................... 660
750
1340
1540
Benzene.....................
26.10
37.57
53.54
77.62
Acetaldehyde................
2.19
3.57
4.44
7.25
Formaldehyde................
4.85
7.73
9.70
15.34
1,3-Butadiene...............
4.31
7.27
9.38
15.84
POM................
1.50
2.21
3.04
4.50
VOC.........................
Benzene..............
860.48
9.66
769.10
8.63
6.24
559.31
492.07
5.50
Summer (mg/mile)
Winter (mg/mile)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Pollutant
Phase I
Phase II
Phase II
Phase I
NO<INF>X.................................
750.0
1540.0
1540.0
VOC..........................................
660.0
1341.0
1341.0
Toxics............................ 48.61
120.55
660.0
1306.5
47.58
660.0
1340.0
1215.1
86.34
1340.0
1466.3
85.61
750.0
1399.1
660.0
6:
Table 6.--Allowable Ranges of E200, E300, and ARO for the Exhaust VOC
Equations in Paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of This Section
Phase I
Phase II
----------------------------------------Fuel parameter
limit
Lower
limit
Higher Lower
limit
limit
Higher
E200..........................
E300..........................
33.00
65.83 33.00
65.52
72.00 \1\Variabl
e 72.00 \2\Variabl
e
ARO...........................
18.00
46.00
18.00
46.00
OLE fuel parameter set equal to 3.77 volume percent when calculating
NO<INF>X performance using the equations described in paragraphs
(d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. Fuels with aromatics levels greater
than 36.2 volume percent shall be evaluated with the ARO fuel parameter
set equal to 36.2 volume percent when calculating NO<INF>X performance
using the equations described in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
(B) During Phase II, fuels with olefin levels less than 3.77 volume
percent shall be evaluated with the OLE fuel parameter set equal to
3.77 volume percent when calculating NO<INF>X performance using the
equations described in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
Fuels with aromatics levels greater than 36.8 volume percent shall be
evaluated with the ARO fuel parameter set equal to 36.8 volume percent
when calculating NO<INF>X performance using the equations described in
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(iv) Linear extrapolations. (A) The equations in paragraphs
(d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section shall be used within the allowable
range of SUL, E300, OLE, and ARO for the appropriate Phase, as defined
in the following Table 7:
Table 7.--Allowable Ranges of SUL, OLE, and ARO for the NO<INF>X Equations in
Paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of This Section
Phase I
Phase II
Fuel parameter
------------------------------------------Low end High end Low end High end
SUL.........................
E300........................
OLE.........................
ARO.........................
10.0
70.0
3.77
18.0
450.0
95.0
19.0
36.2
10.0
70.0
3.77
18.0
450.0
95.0
19.0
36.8
(B) For fuels with SUL, E300, OLE and ARO levels outside the ranges
defined in Table 7 of paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(A) of this section,
Y<INF>NOx(t) shall be defined as:
For Phase I:
Y<INF>NOx(t) = 100% x 0.82 x [exp(n<INF>1(et)) / exp(n<INF>1(b)) -
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
where
n<INF>1, n<INF>2=The equations defined in paragraphs (d)(1) (i) and
(ii) of this section.
et=Collection of fuel parameters for the ``edge target'' fuel. These
parameters are defined in paragraphs (d)(1)(iv) (C) and (D) of this
section.
n<INF>1(et)=The function n<INF>1 evaluated with ``edge target'' fuel
parameters, which are defined in paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(C) of this
section.
n<INF>2(et)=The function n<INF>2 evaluated with ``edge target'' fuel
parameters, which are defined in paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(C) of this
section.
n<INF>1(b)=The function n<INF>1 evaluated with the appropriate baseline
fuel parameters defined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
n<INF>2(b)=The function n<INF>2 evaluated with the appropriate baseline
fuel parameters defined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
BUTA=BUTA(b)+(BUTA(b) x Y<INF>BUTA(t)/100)
Y<INF>BUTA(t)=[(w<INF>1 x N<INF>d)+(w<INF>2 x H<INF>d)-1] x 100
where
BUTA=Exhaust 1,3-butadiene emissions in terms of milligrams/mile
Y<INF>BUTA(t)=1,3-butadiene performance of target fuel in terms of
percentage change from baseline
BUTA(b)=Baseline 1,3-butadiene emissions as defined in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section for the appropriate phase and season
N<INF>d=exp d<INF>1(t)/exp d<INF>1(b)
H<INF>d=exp d<INF>2(t)/exp d<INF>2(b)
w<INF>1=Weighting factor for normal emitters as defined in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section for the appropriate phase
w<INF>2=Weighting factor for higher emitters as defined in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section for the appropriate Phase.
d<INF>1(t)=Normal emitter 1,3-butadiene equation as defined in
paragraph (e)(7)(i) of this section, evaluated using the target fuel's
properties, subject to paragraph (e)(7)(iii) of this section.
d<INF>2(t)=Higher emitter 1,3-butadiene equation as defined in
paragraph (e)(7)(ii) of this section, evaluated using the target fuel's
properties, subject to paragraph (e)(7)(iii) of this section.
d<INF>1(b)=Normal emitter 1,3-butadiene equation as defined in
paragraph (e)(7)(i) of this section, evaluated for the base fuel's
properties.
d<INF>2(b)=Higher emitter 1,3-butadiene equation as defined in
paragraph (e)(7)(ii) of this section, evaluated for the base fuel's
properties.
(i) Consolidated equation for normal emitters.
d<INF>1=(0.0001552 x SUL)+
(-0.007253 x E200)+(-0.014866 x E300)+(-0.004005 x ARO)+(0.0282350 x OLE
)
(ii) Equation for higher emitters.
d<INF>2=(-0.060771 x OXY)+
(-0.007311 x E200)+(-0.008058 x E300)+(-0.004005 x ARO)+(0.0436960 x OLE
)
(iii) If the aromatics value of the target fuel is less than 10
Fuel property
Acceptable range
Fuel property
Acceptable range
(2) Fuels with one or more properties that do not fall within the
ranges described in above shall not be certified or evaluated for their
emissions performance using the complex emissions model described in
paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section.
Sec. 80.46 Measurement of reformulated gasoline fuel parameters.
(a) Sulfur. Sulfur content shall be determined using American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard method D-2622-92,
entitled ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by XRay
Spectrometry.''
(b) Olefins. Olefin content shall be determined using ASTM standard
method D-1319-93, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types
in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption.''
(c) Reid vapor pressure (RVP). Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) shall be
determined using the procedure described in 40 CFR part 80, appendix E,
Method 3.
(d) Distillation. (1) Distillation parameters shall be determined
using ASTM standard method D-86-90, entitled ``Standard Test Method for
Distillation of Petroleum Products''; except that
(2) The figures for repeatability and reproducibility given in
degrees Fahrenheit in Table 9 in the ASTM method are incorrect, and
shall not be used.
(e) Benzene. (1) Benzene content shall be determined using ASTM
the initial study. Other columns and retention times can be used.
(1) 4-methyl-2-pentanone, 50 vol% [108-10-1], 43.0 amu, 22.8 min.,
bp 118;
(2) benzyl alcohol, 25 vol%, [100-51-6], 108 amu, 61.7 min., bp
205;
(3) 1-octanol, [111-87-5], 25 vol%, 56.0 amu, 76.6 min., bp 196;
(K) At least two calibration mixtures which bracket the measured
total aromatics concentration must be made with a representative
mixture of aromatic compounds. The materials and concentrations used in
the highest concentration calibration level in the initial study for
this method are listed in this paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(K). Also listed is
the Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS), atomic mass unit
(amu) on which the detector must be set for the corresponding retention
time if used in the selective ion mode, retention times in minutes, and
in some cases boiling point in deg.C. The standards are made in 2,2,4trimethylpentane (iso-octane), [540-84-1]. Other aromatic compounds,
and retention times may be acceptable as long as the aromatic values
produced meet the criteria found in the quality assurance section for
the aromatic methods.
Compound
Retention
point,
Concentrations
vol %
CAS No.
Boiling
AMU
time, min.
deg.C
Benzene.....................................
2.25
71-43-2
78
18.9
80.1
Methylbenzene...............................
2.5
108-88-3
91
25.5
111
Ethylbenzene................................
2.25
100-41-4
91
34.1
136.2
1,3-Dimethylbenzene 1,4-Dimethylbenzene.....
5
108-38-3
91
35.1 136-138
1,2-dimethylbenzene.........................
10
95-47-6
91
38.1
144
(1-methylethyl)-benzene.....................
2.25
620-14-4
105
42.8 ............
Propylbenzene...............................
2.25
103-65-1
91
48.0
159.2
1-ethyl-2-methylbenzene.....................
2.25
611-14-3
105
49.3
165
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene......................
2.25
95-63-6
105
50.9
169
1-ethyl-2-methylbenzene.....................
2.25
611-14-4
105
53.3
165
1,3-diethylbenzene..........................
2.25
141-93-5
119
56.6
181
Butylbenzene................................
2.25
104-51-8
91
60.7
183
1-methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)-benzene..........
2.25
933-98-2
119
63.9 ............
1-ethyl-3-methylbenzene.....................
2.25
620-14-4
105
64.2 ............
1-methyl-4-iso-propylbenzene................
2.25
99-87-6
119
69.0
177
2-ethyl-1,3-dimethylbenzene.................
2.25
2870-04-4
119
73.0
............
2-methylpropylbenzene.......................
2.25
538-93-2
91
75.0 ............
1-methyl-3-(1-methylethyl)-benzene..........
2.25
535-77-3
119
75.6 ............
1-methyl-3-propylbenzene....................
2.25
1074-43-7
105
78.9
............
2-ethyl-1,4-dimethylbenzene.................
2.25
1758-88-9
119
83.2
187
1-methyl-4-(methylethyl)-benzene............
2.25
934-80-9
119
83.4 ............
1-ethyl-2,4-dimethylbenzene.................
2.25
874-41-9
119
85.7 ............
(1,1-dimethylethy)-3-methylbenzene..........
2.25
27138-21-2
133
87.3 ............
1-ethyl-2,3-dimethylbenzene.................
2.25
933-98-2
119
88.7 ............
1-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-methylbenzene.......
2.25
175-38-3
133
89.4 ............
1-ethyl-1,4-dimethylbenzene.................
2.25
874-41-9
119
94.9 ............
2-ethyl-1,3-dimethylbenzene.................
2.25
2870-04-4
119
100.9
............
1-ethyl-3,5-dimethylbenzene.................
2.25
934-74-7
119
102.5
............
1-2,4,5-tetramethylbenzene..................
2.25
95-93-2
119
115.9
197
Pentylbenzene...............................
2.25
538-68-1
91
116 ............
Naphthalene.................................
2.25
191-20-3
128
118.4
198
3,5 dimethyl-iso-butylbenzene.........
205.5
2.25
98-19-1
147
118.5
the instrument.
(iii) Replicate samples must be within 3.0 volume percent of the
previous sample or within 2.0 volume percent of the mean at the 95%
confidence level.
(3) Alternative test method. (i) Prior to January 1, 1997, any
refiner or importer may determine aromatics content using ASTM standard
method D-1319-93, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types
in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption,'' for
purposes of meeting any testing requirement involving aromatics
content; provided that
(ii) The refiner or importer test result is correlated with the
method specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(g) Oxygen and oxygenate content analysis. Oxygen and oxygenate
content shall be determined by the gas chromatographic procedure using
an oxygenate flame ionization detector (GC-OFID) as set out in
paragraphs (g) (1) through (8) of this section.
(1) Introduction; scope of application. (i) The following singlecolumn,
direct-injection gas chromatographic procedure is a technique
for quantifying the oxygenate content of gasoline.
(ii) This method covers the quantitative determination of the
oxygenate content of gasoline through the use of an oxygenate flame
ionization detector (OFID). It is applicable to individual organic
oxygenated compounds (up to 20 mass percent each) in gasoline having a
final boiling point not greater than 220 deg.C. Samples above this
level should be diluted to fall within the specified range.
(iii) The total concentration of oxygen in the gasoline, due to
oxygenated components, may also be determined with this method by
summation of all peak areas except for dissolved oxygen, water, and the
internal standard. Sensitivities to each component oxygenate must be
incorporated in the calculation.
(iv) All oxygenated gasoline components (alcohols, ethers, etc.)
may be assessed by this method.
(v) The total mass percent of oxygen in the gasoline due to
oxygenated components also may be determined with this method by
summing all peak areas except for dissolved oxygen, water, and the
internal standard.
(vi) Where trade names or specific products are noted in the
method, equivalent apparatus and chemical reagents may be used. Mention
of trade names or specific products is for the assistance of the user
and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Oxygenate
Methanol.....................................
Ethanol......................................
t-Butanol....................................
MTBE.........................................
Number of
Range
standards
(percent) (minimum)
0.25-12.00
0.25-12.00
0.25-12.00
0.25-15.00
5
5
5
5
(ii) Take a glass sample container and its PTFE faced rubber septum
sealing cap. Transfer a quantity of an oxygenate to the sample
container and record the mass of the oxygenate to the nearest 0.1 mg.
Repeat this process for any additional oxygenates of interest except
the internal standard. Add oxygenate-free gasoline to dilute the
oxygenates to the desired concentration. Record the mass of gasoline
added to the nearest 0.1 mg, and determine and label the standard
according to the mass percent quantities of each oxygenate added. These
standards are not to exceed 20 mass percent for any individual pure
Oxygenate
Retention
time
CAS
(minutes)
Dissolved oxygen.............................
7782-44-7
5.50
Water........................................
7732-18-5
7.20
Methanol.....................................
67-56-1
9.10
Ethanol......................................
64-17-5 12.60
Propanone....................................
67-64-1 15.00
2-Propanol...................................
67-63-0 15.70
t-Butanol....................................
75-65-0 18.00
n-Propanol...................................
71-23-8 21.10
MTBE.........................................
1634-04-4 23.80
2-Butanol....................................
15892-23-6 26.30
i-Butanol....................................
78-83-1 30.30
ETBE.........................................
n-Butanol....................................
TAME.........................................
i-Pentanol...................................
637-92-3
71-36-3
994-05-8
137-32-6
31.10
33.50
35.30
38.10
<GRAPHIC><TIF2>TR16FE94.002
where:
M<INF>o% = mass percent of the oxygenate in the test sample
M<INF>s = mass of sample to which internal standard is added
(viii) If the mass percent exceeds the calibrated range,
gravimetrically dilute a portion of the original sample to a
concentration within the calibration range and analyze this sample
starting with paragraph (g)(7)(iii) of this section.
(ix) Report the total weight percent oxygen as follows:
(A) Subtract the peak areas due to dissolved oxygen, water, and the
internal standard from the total summed peak areas of the chromatogram.
(B) Assume the total summed peak area solely due to one of the
oxygenates that the instrument is calibrated for and determine the
total mass percent as that oxygenate based on paragraph (g)(7)(vii) of
this section. For simplicity, chose an oxygenate having one oxygen atom
per molecule.
(C) Multiply this concentration by the molar mass of oxygen and
divide by the molar mass of the chosen oxygenate to determine the mass
percent oxygen in the sample. For example, if the total peak area is
based on MTBE, multiply by 16.00 (the molar mass of atomic oxygen) and
divide by 88.15 (the molar mass of MTBE).
(x) Sufficient sample should be retained to permit reanalysis.
(8) Quality control procedures and accuracy. (i) The laboratory
shall routinely monitor the repeatability (precision) of its analyses.
The recommendations are:
(A) The preparation and analysis of laboratory duplicates at a rate
of one per analysis batch or at least one per ten samples, whichever is
more frequent.
(B) Laboratory duplicates shall be carried through all sample
preparation steps independently.
(C) The range (R) for duplicate samples should be less than the
following limits:
Concentration
Oxygenate
Methanol...........................
Methanol...........................
mass percent
0.27-1.07 0.010+0.043C
1.07-12.73 0.053C
where:
C=(C<INF>o+C<INF>d)/2
C<INF>o=concentration of the original sample
C<INF>d=concentration of the duplicate sample
R=Range, |C<INF>o-C<INF>d|
(D) If the limits in paragraph (g)(8)(i)(C) of this section are
exceeded, the sources of error in the analysis should be determined,
corrected, and all analyses subsequent to and including the last
duplicate analysis confirmed to be within the compliance specifications
must be repeated. The specification limits for the range and relative
range of duplicate analyses are minimum performance requirements. The
performance of individual laboratories may indeed be better than these
minimum requirements. For this reason it is recommended that control
charts be utilized to monitor the variability of measurements in order
to optimally detect abnormal situations and ensure a stable measurement
process.
(E) (1) For reference purposes, a single laboratory study of
repeatability was conducted on approximately 27 replicates at each of
five concentrations for each oxygenate. The variation of MTBE analyses
as measured by standard deviation was very linear with respect to
concentration. Where concentration is expressed as mass percent, over
the concentration range of 0.25 to 15.0 mass percent this relationship
is described by the equation:
standard deviation=0.00784 x C+0.0187
(2) The other oxygenates of interest, methanol, ethanol, DIPE,
ETBE, and TAME, had consistent coefficients of variation at one mass
percent and above:
Oxygenate
Coefficient
of
Concentration variation
Methanol...................................
Ethanol....................................
DIPE.......................................
ETBE.......................................
TAME.......................................
1.07-12.73
1.01-12.70
0.98-17.70
1.00-18.04
1.04-18.59
1.43
1.43
1.29
2.00
1.62
Concentration
-------------------------------Mass
Repeatability
Oxygenate
Methanol.................
Ethanol..................
MTBE.....................
DIPE.....................
ETBE.....................
TAME.....................
Methanol.................
Ethanol..................
MTBE.....................
DIPE.....................
2.0
4.00
2.0
5.75
2.00 11.00
2.0
12.77
2.0
12.77
2.0
12.77
2.7
5.40
2.7
7.76
2.7
14.88
2.7
17.24
3.75
5.41
11.00
13.00
12.74
12.33
5.07
7.31
14.88
17.53
mass percent
0.11
0.16
0.21
0.32
0.50
0.41
0.15
0.21
0.26
0.43
ETBE.....................
TAME.....................
2.7
2.7
17.24
17.24
17.20
16.68
0.67
0.55
Relative
Concentration
range
(volume
Range (volume
percent)
percent)
Oxygenate
Methanol..............................
Ethanol...............................
t-Butanol.............................
1.0-12.0 .......
3.0-12.0 .......
3.0-12.0 .......
MTBE..................................
3.0-15.0
0.55
7.2
7.1
9.4
9.2
Concentration Repeatability
Oxygenate
(weight
(volume
(Percent)
percent)
Methanol.......................
Ethanol........................
t-Butanol......................
MTBE...........................
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
percent)
3.7
5.4
8.8
11.0
0.11
0.24
0.39
0.37
Fuel parameter
Sulfur, ppm.........................................
RVP, psi............................................
E200, vol %.........................................
E300, vol %.........................................
Aromatics, vol %....................................
Benzene, vol %......................................
Olefins, vol %......................................
Oxygen, wt %........................................
As ethanol........................................
All others:.......................................
10
450
7
10
33
66
72
94
18
46
0.4
1.8
1
19
0
0
3.4
2.7
that the fuel supplier had already begun producing a fuel utilizing the
augmentation at the time the revised model is promulgated.
(ii) The augmentation in question may only be used to evaluate the
emissions performance of fuels in conjunction with the complex emission
model in effect as of the date of production of the fuels.
(iii) The augmentation may only be used for three years of fuel
production, or a total of five years from the date the augmentation
first took effect, whichever is shorter.
(3) The Administrator shall determine when sufficient new
information on the effects of fuel properties on vehicle emissions has
been obtained to warrant development of an updated complex model.
Sec. 80.49 Fuels to be used in augmenting the complex emission model
through vehicle testing.
(a) Seven fuels (hereinafter called the ``addition fuels'') shall
be tested for the purpose of augmenting the complex emission model with
a parameter not currently included in the complex emission model. The
properties of the addition fuels are specified in paragraphs (a) (1)
and (2) of this section. The addition fuels shall be specified with at
least the same level of detail and precision as in Sec. 80.43(c), and
this information must be included in the petition submitted to the
Administrator requesting augmentation of the complex emission model.
(1) The seven addition fuels to be tested when augmenting the
complex model specified at Sec. 80.45 with a new fuel parameter shall
have the properties specified as follows:
Properties of Fuels To Be Tested When Augmenting the Model With a New
Fuel Parameter
Fuels
Fuel property
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
2
3
4
5
6
Octane, (R+M)/2............. 87
New Parameter\1\............ C
87
87
C+B/2
B
87
C
87
B
87
C
87
B
(iii) The addition fuels shall be specified with at least the same
level of detail and precision as defined in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this
section, and this information must be included in the petition
submitted to the Administrator requesting augmentation of the complex
emission model.
(4) The properties of the addition fuels shall be within the
blending tolerances defined in this paragraph (a)(4) relative to the
values specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. Fuels
that do not meet these tolerances shall require the approval of the
Administrator to be used in vehicle testing to augment the complex
emission model:
Fuel parameter
Blending tolerance
Fuel parameter
Measurement uncertainty
Extension
Extension
(ii) The levels of parameters other than the one being extended
shall be given by the following table for all three extension fuels:
Levels for Fuel Parameters Other Than Those Being Extended
Extension Extension Extension
Fuel property
Sulfur, ppm............................
150
150
Benzene, vol %.........................
1.0
1.0
150
1.0
RVP, psi...............................
7.5
7.5
7.5
E200, %................................
50
50
50
E300, %................................
85
85
85
Aromatics, vol %.......................
25
25
25
Olefins, vol %.........................
9.0
9.0
9.0
Oxygen, wt %...........................
2.0
2.0
2.0
Octane, R+M/2..........................
87
87
87
(3) If the Complex Model for any pollutant includes one or more
interactive terms involving the parameter being extended, then two
additional extension fuels shall be required to be tested for each such
interactive term. These additional extension fuels shall have the
following properties:
(i) The parameter being tested shall be present at its extension
level.
(ii) The interacting parameter shall be present at the levels
specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section for extension Fuels 2
and 3.
(iii) All other parameters shall be present at the levels specified
in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(3) of this section.
(4) All extension fuels shall contain detergent control additives
in accordance with Section 211(l) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 and the associated EPA requirements for such additives.
(c) The addition fuels defined in paragraph (a) of this section and
the extension fuels defined in paragraph (b) of this section shall meet
the following requirements for blending and measurement precision:
(1) The properties of the test and extension fuels shall be within
the blending tolerances defined in this paragraph (c) relative to the
values specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. Fuels that
do not meet the following tolerances shall require the approval of the
Administrator to be used in vehicle testing to augment the complex
emission model:
Fuel parameter
Blending tolerance
Fuel parameter
Measurement uncertainty
(iii) Petitioners shall obtain approval from EPA for the 95%
confidence limits for measurements of fuel parameters for which
emission reduction benefits are claimed and for which tolerances are
not defined in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section.
(iv) Each test must be conducted in the same laboratory in
accordance with the procedures outlined at Sec. 80.46.
(v) The complex emission model described at Sec. 80.45 shall be
used to adjust the emission performance of the addition and extension
fuels to compensate for differences in fuel compositions that are
incorporated in the complex model, as described at Sec. 80.48.
Compensating adjustments for naturally-resulting variations in fuel
parameters shall also be made using the complex model. The adjustment
process is described in paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) The complex emission model described at Sec. 80.45 shall be
used to adjust the emission performance of addition and extension fuels
to compensate for differences in fuel parameters other than the
parameter being tested. Compensating adjustments for naturallyresulting
variations in fuel parameters shall also be made using the
complex model. These adjustments shall be calculated as follows:
(1) Determine the exhaust emissions performance of the actual
addition or extension fuels relative to the exhaust emissions
performance of Clean Air Act baseline fuel using the complex model. For
addition fuels, set the level of the parameter being tested at baseline
levels for purposes of emissions performance evaluation using the
complex model. For extension fuel #1, set the level of the parameter
being extended at the level specified in extension fuel #2. Also
determine the exhaust emissions performance of the addition fuels
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section with the level of the
parameter being tested set at baseline levels.
(2) Calculate adjustment factors for each addition fuel as follows:
(i) Adjustment factors shall be calculated using the formula:
<GRAPHIC><TIF6>TR16FE94.006
where
Tech.
Veh. No.
Manufacturer
Fuel system
Catalyst
Air injection
EGR
group
1 GM.
2 Ford.
3 GM.
4 Ford.
1 Honda.
2 GM.
3 Chrysler.
4 GM.
7 Chrysler.
5 Toyota.
1 Ford.
2 Chrysler.
9 Toyota.
3 Ford.
4 GM.
1 Toyota.
2 Mazda.
3 GM.
4 Ford.
1 Nissan.
Tech group
EGR
1................
2................
3................
4................
5................
6................
7................
8................
9................
Fuel system
Catalyst
Air injection
Legend:
Fuel system:
Multi=Multi-point fuel injection
TBI=Throttle body fuel injection
Carb=Carburetted
Catalyst:
3W=3-Way catalyst
3W+OX=3-Way catalyst plus an oxidation catalyst
Air Injection:
Air=Air injection
EGR=Exhaust gas recirculation
(2) Test vehicles for the higher emitter sub-fleet shall be
selected from the in-use fleet in accordance with paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section and with Sec. 80.59. Test vehicles for the higher
emitter sub-fleet are not required to follow the pattern established in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(3) The minimum test fleet size is 20 vehicles. Half of the
vehicles tested must be included in the normal emitter sub-fleet and
half of the vehicles tested must be in the higher emitter sub-fleet. If
additional vehicles are tested beyond the minimum of twenty vehicles,
the additional vehicles shall be distributed equally between the normal
and higher emitter sub-fleets.
(4) For each emitter group sub-fleet, 70 <plus-minus> 9.5% of the
sub-fleet must be LDVs, & 30 <plus-minus> 9.5% must be LDTs. LDTs
include light-duty trucks class 1 (LDT1), and light-duty trucks class 2
(LDT2) up to 8500 lbs GVWR.
Sec. 80.61 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.62 Vehicle test procedures to place vehicles in emitter group
sub-fleets.
One of the two following test procedures must be used to screen
candidate vehicles for their exhaust THC emissions to place them within
the emitter group sub-fleets in accordance with the requirements of
Sec. 80.60.
(a) Candidate vehicles may be tested for their exhaust THC
emissions using the federal test procedure as detailed in 40 CFR part
86, with gasoline conforming to requirements detailed in 40 CFR 86.11390. The results shall be used in accordance with the requirements in
Sec. 80.60 to place the vehicles within their respective emitter
groups.
(b) Alternatively, candidate vehicles may be screened for their
exhaust THC emissions with the IM240 short test procedure.\1\ The
results from the IM240 shall be converted into results comparable with
the standard exhaust FTP as detailed in this paragraph (b) to place the
(1) A candidate vehicle with IM240 test results <0.367 grams THC
per vehicle mile shall be classified as a normal emitter.
(2) A candidate vehicle with IM240 test results <gr-thn-eq>0.367
grams THC per vehicle mile shall be classified as a higher emitter.
Secs. 80.63-80.64 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.65 General requirements for refiners, importers, and oxygenate
blenders.
(a) Date requirements begin. The requirements of this subpart D
apply to all gasoline produced, imported, transported, stored, sold, or
dispensed:
(1) At any location other than retail outlets and wholesale
purchaser-consumer facilities on or after December 1, 1994; and
(2) At any location on or after January 1, 1995.
(b) Certification of gasoline and RBOB. Gasoline or RBOB sold or
dispensed in a covered area must be certified under Sec. 80.40.
(c) Standards must be met on either a per-gallon or on an average
basis. (1) Any refiner or importer, for each batch of reformulated
gasoline or RBOB it produces or imports, shall meet:
(i) Those standards and requirements it designated under paragraph
(d) of this section for per-gallon compliance on a per-gallon basis;
and
(ii) Those standards and requirements it designated under paragraph
(d) of this section for average compliance on an average basis over the
applicable averaging period; except that
(iii) Refiners and importers are not required to meet the oxygen
standard for RBOB.
(2) Any oxygenate blender, for each batch of reformulated gasoline
Fuel property
Range
(ii) In the event the values from the two laboratories for any
property fall outside these ranges, the refiner or importer shall use
as the basis for compliance determinations:
(A) The larger of the two values for the property, except the
smaller of the two results shall be used for MTBE, ethanol, methanol,
or ETBE for calculating compliance with all requirements and standards
except RVP; or
(B) The refiner shall have the gasoline analyzed for the property
at one additional independent laboratory. If this second independent
laboratory obtains a result for the property that is within the range,
independent laboratories;
(9) Any quality assurance procedures that are carried out over the
operation; and
(10) Any occasion(s) during the previous three years when the
refiner adjusted any physical or chemical property of any gasoline
produced using the operation downstream from the operation, including
the nature of the adjustment and the reason the gasoline had properties
that required adjustment; and
(B) A description of the independent audit program of the refiner's
computer-controlled in-line blending operation that the refiner
proposes will satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (f)(4); and
(ii) Carries out an independent audit program of the refiner's
computer-controlled in-line blending operation, such program to
include:
(A) For each batch of reformulated gasoline produced using the
operation, a review of the documents generated that is sufficient to
determine the properties and volume of the gasoline produced;
(B) Audits that occur no less frequently than annually;
(C) Reports of the results of such audits submitted to the refiner,
and to EPA by the auditor no later than February 28 of each year;
(D) Audits that are conducted by an auditor that meets the nondebarred
criteria specified in Sec. 80.125 (a) and/or (d); and
(iii) Complies with any other requirements that EPA includes as
part of the exemption.
(g) Marking of conventional gasoline. [Reserved]
(h) Compliance audits. Any refiner, importer, and oxygenate blender
of any reformulated gasoline or RBOB shall have the reformulated
gasoline or RBOB it produced, imported, or blended during each calendar
year audited for compliance with the requirements of this subpart D, in
accordance with the requirements of subpart F of this part, at the
conclusion of each calendar year.
(i) Exclusion from compliance calculations of gasoline received
from others. Any refiner for each refinery, any oxygenate blender for
each oxygenate blending facility, and any importer shall exclude from
all compliance calculations the volume and properties of any
reformulated gasoline that is produced at another refinery or oxygenate
blending facility or imported by another importer.
Sec. 80.66 Calculation of reformulated gasoline properties.
(a) All volume measurements required by these regulations shall be
(1) The averaging period for the requirements for benzene content and
toxics emission performance is January 1 through December 31 of each
year.
(2) The reformulated gasoline and RBOB produced at any refinery or
imported by any importer during the toxics emissions performance and
benzene averaging periods that is designated for average compliance for
these parameters shall on average meet the standards specified for
toxics emissions performance and benzene in Sec. 80.41 which are
applicable to that refinery or importer.
(3) Each gallon of reformulated gasoline may not exceed the maximum
standard for benzene content specified in Sec. 80.41 which is
applicable to that refinery or importer.
(e) NO<INF>X compliance on average. (1) The averaging period for
NO<INF>X emissions performance is January 1 through December 31 of each
year.
(2) The requirements of this paragraph (e) apply separately to
reformulated gasoline and RBOB in the following categories:
(i) All reformulated gasoline and RBOB that is designated as VOCcontrolled;
and
(ii) All reformulated gasoline and RBOB that is not designated as
VOC-controlled.
(3) The reformulated gasoline and RBOB produced at any refinery or
imported by any importer during the NO<INF>X averaging period that is
designated for average compliance for NO<INF>X shall on average meet
the standards for NO<INF>X specified in Sec. 80.41 that are applicable
to that refinery or importer.
(4) Each gallon of reformulated gasoline must equal or exceed the
minimum standards for NO<INF>X emissions performance specified in
Sec. 80.41 which are applicable to that refinery or importer.
(f) Oxygen compliance on average. (1) The averaging period for the
oxygen content requirements is January 1 through December 31 of each
year.
(2) The requirements of this paragraph (f) apply separately to
reformulated gasoline in the following categories:
(i) All reformulated gasoline;
(ii) All reformulated gasoline that is not designated as being
OPRG; and
(iii) In the case of reformulated gasoline certified under the
simple model, that which is designated as VOC- controlled.
<GRAPHIC><TIF10>TR16FE94.010
where:
ANS<INF>i = the adjusted number of surveys in year i; i = the year
after the failure and each subsequent year
V<INF>failed = the total volume of gasoline supplied to the covered
area which failed the survey or survey series in the year of the
failure
V<INF>total = the total volume of gasoline supplied to all covered
areas in the year of the failure
NS<INF>i = the number of surveys in year i according to the
schedule in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and as adjusted by
paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section; i = the year after the failure and
each subsequent year
(3) The survey program shall meet the criteria stated in paragraph
(c) of this section.
(4) On each occasion the comprehensive survey program does not
occur as specified in the approved plan with regard to any covered
area:
(i) Each refiner, importer, and oxygenate blender who supplied any
reformulated gasoline or RBOB to the covered area and who has not
satisfied the survey requirements described in paragraph (a) of this
section shall be deemed to have failed to carry out an approved survey
program; and
(ii) The covered area will be deemed to have failed surveys for VOC
and NO<INF>X emissions performance, and survey series for benzene and
oxygen, and toxic and NO<INF>X emissions performance.
(c) General survey requirements. (1) During the period January 1,
1995 through December 31, 1997:
(i) Any sample taken from a retail gasoline storage tank for which
the three most recent deliveries were of gasoline designated as
meeting:
(A) Simple model standards shall be considered a ``simple model
sample''; or
(B) Complex model standards shall be considered a ``complex model
sample.''
(C) The covered area shall have failed the complex model toxics
survey series if the annual average toxics emissions reduction is less
than the applicable per-gallon complex model standard for toxics
emissions reduction.
(10) The results of each NO<INF>X emissions reduction survey and
survey series shall be determined as follows:
(i) For each sample from the survey and survey series, the NO<INF>X
emissions reduction percentage shall be determined based upon the
tested parameter values for that sample and the appropriate methodology
for calculating NO<INF>X emissions reduction at Sec. 80.47; and
(ii) The covered area shall have failed the NO<INF>X survey or
survey series if the NO<INF>X emissions reduction percentage average
for all survey samples is less than the applicable Phase I or Phase II
complex model per-gallon standard for NO<INF>X emissions reduction.
(11) For any benzene content survey series conducted in any covered
area the average benzene content for all samples from the survey series
shall be calculated. If this annual average is greater than 1.000
percent by volume, the covered area shall have failed a benzene survey
series.
(12) For any oxygen content survey series conducted in any covered
area the average oxygen content for all samples from the survey series
shall be calculated. If this annual average is less than 2.00 percent
by weight, the covered area shall have failed an oxygen survey series.
Each survey program shall:
(i) Be planned and conducted by a person who is independent of the
refiner or importer (the surveyor). In order to be considered
independent:
(A) The surveyor shall not be an employee of any refiner or
importer;
(B) The surveyor shall be free from any obligation to or interest
in any refiner or importer; and
(C) The refiner or importer shall be free from any obligation to or
interest in the surveyor; and
(ii) Include procedures for selecting sample collection locations,
numbers of samples, and gasoline compositions which will result in:
(A) Simple model surveys representing all gasoline certified using
the simple model being dispensed at retail outlets within the covered
area during the period of the survey; and
(B) Complex model surveys representing all gasoline certified using
the complex model being dispensed at retail outlets within the covered
area during the period of the survey; and
(iii) Include procedures such that the number of samples included
in each survey assures that:
(A) In the case of simple model surveys, the average levels of
oxygen, benzene, RVP, and aromatic hydrocarbons are determined with a
95% confidence level, with error of less than 0.1 psi for RVP, 0.05%
for benzene (by volume), and 0.1% for oxygen (by weight); and
(B) In the case of complex model surveys, the average levels of
oxygen, benzene, RVP, aromatic hydrocarbons, olefins, T-50, T-90, and
sulfur are determined with a 95% confidence level, with error of less
than 0.1 psi for RVP, 0.05% for benzene (by volume), 0.1% for oxygen
(by weight), 0.5% for aromatic hydrocarbons (by volume), 0.5% for
olefins (by volume), 5 deg.F. for T-50 and T-90, and 10 ppm for
sulfur; and
(iv) Require that the surveyor shall:
(A) Not inform anyone, in advance, of the date or location for the
conduct of any survey;
(B) Upon request by EPA made within thirty days following the
submission of the report of a survey, provide a duplicate of any
gasoline sample taken during that survey to EPA at a location to be
specified by EPA each sample to be identified by the name and address
of the facility where collected, the date of collection, and the
classification of the sample as simple model or complex model; and
(C) At any time permit any representative of EPA to monitor the
conduct of the survey, including sample collection, transportation,
storage, and analysis; and
(v) Require the surveyor to submit to EPA a report of each survey,
within thirty days following completion of the survey, such report to
include the following information:
(A) The identification of the person who conducted the survey;
(B) An attestation by an officer of the surveyor company that the
survey was conducted in accordance with the survey plan and that the
survey results are accurate;
(C) If the survey was conducted for one refiner or importer, the
identification of that party;
(D) The identification of the covered area surveyed;
(E) The dates on which the survey was conducted;
(F) The address of each facility at which a gasoline sample was
collected, the date of collection, and the classification of the sample
weight percent;
(9) Any refiner or importer who does not meet the contractual and
quality assurance requirements specified in paragraphs (a) (6) and (7)
of this section, and who does not designate its RBOB as ether-only or
any-oxygenate, shall base its compliance calculations on the assumption
that 4.0 volume percent ethanol is added to the RBOB; and
(10) Specify in the product transfer documentation for the RBOB
each oxygenate type or types and amount or range of amounts which is
consistent with the designation of the RBOB as any-oxygenate, or etheronly,
and which, if blended with the RBOB will result in reformulated
gasoline which:
(i) Has VOC, toxics, or NO<INF>X emissions reduction percentages
which are no lower than the percentages that formed the basis for the
refiner's or importer's compliance determination for these parameters;
(ii) Has a benzene content and RVP level which are no higher than
the values for these characteristics that formed the basis for the
refiner's or importer's compliance determinations for these parameters;
and
(iii) Will not cause the reformulated gasoline to violate any
standard specified in Sec. 80.41.
(b) Requirements for oxygenate blenders. For all RBOB received by
any oxygenate blender, the oxygenate blender shall:
(1) Add oxygenate of the type(s) and amount (or within the range of
amounts) specified in the product transfer documents for the RBOB;
(2) Designate each batch of the resulting reformulated gasoline as
meeting the oxygen standard per-gallon or on average;
(3) Meet the standard requirements specified in Sec. 80.65(c) and
Sec. 80.67(e), the record keeping requirements specified in Sec. 80.74,
and the reporting requirements specified in Sec. 80.75; and
(4) In the case of each batch of reformulated gasoline which is
designated for compliance with the oxygen standard on average:
(i) Determine the volume and the weight percent oxygen of the batch
using the testing methodology specified in Sec. 80.46;
(ii) Assign a number to the batch (the ``batch number''), beginning
with the number one for the first batch produced each calendar year and
each subsequent batch during the calendar year being assigned the next
sequential number, and such numbers to be preceded by the oxygenate
blender's registration number, the facility number, and the second two
digits of the year in which the batch was produced (e.g., 4321-4321-95001, 4321-4321-95-002, etc.); and
(iii) Meet the compliance audit requirements specified in
Sec. 80.65(h).
(ii) Oldham;
(5) The following Maine counties:
(i) Androscoggin;
(ii) Cumberland;
(iii) Kennebec;
(iv) Knox;
(v) Lincoln;
(vi) Sagadahoc;
(vii) York;
(viii) Hancock; and
(ix) Waldo;
(6) The following Maryland counties:
(i) Calvert;
(ii) Charles;
(iii) Frederick;
(iv) Montgomery;
(v) Prince Georges;
(vi) Queen Anne's; and
(vii) Kent;
(7) The entire State of Massachusetts;
(8) The following New Hampshire counties:
(i) Strafford;
(ii) Merrimack;
(iii) Hillsborough; and
(iv) Rockingham;
(9) The following New Jersey counties:
(i) Atlantic;
(ii) Cape May; and
(iii) Warren;
(10) The following New York counties:
(i) Albany;
(ii) Dutchess;
(iii) Erie;
(iv) Essex;
(v) Greene;
(vi) Jefferson;
(vii) Montgomery;
(viii) Niagara;
(ix) Rensselaer;
(x) Saratoga; and
(xi) Schenectady;
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
(b) Reformulated gasoline covered areas which are located in the
following states are included in VOC-Control Region 2:
Connecticut
Delaware
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
(c) Reformulated gasoline covered areas which are partially in VOC
Control Region 1 and partially in VOC Control Region 2 shall be
included in VOC Control Region 1, except in the case of the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton CMSA which shall be included in VOC
Control Region 2.
Sec. 80.72 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.73 Inability to produce conforming gasoline in extraordinary
circumstances.
In appropriate extreme and unusual circumstances (e.g., natural
disaster or Act of God) which are clearly outside the control of the
refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender and which could not have been
avoided by the exercise of prudence, diligence, and due care, EPA may
permit a refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender, for a brief period,
to distribute gasoline which does not meet the requirements for
reformulated gasoline, if:
(a) It is in the public interest to do so (e.g., distribution of
the nonconforming gasoline is necessary to meet projected shortfalls
which cannot otherwise be compensated for);
(b) The refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender exercised prudent
planning and was not able to avoid the violation and has taken all
reasonable steps to minimize the extent of the nonconformity;
(c) The refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender can show how the
requirements for reformulated gasoline will be expeditiously achieved;
(d) The refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender agrees to make up
air quality detriment associated with the nonconforming gasoline, where
practicable; and
(e) The refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender pays to the U.S.
Treasury an amount equal to the economic benefit of the nonconformity
minus the amount expended, pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section,
in making up the air quality detriment.
Sec. 80.74 Record keeping requirements.
All parties in the gasoline distribution network, as described in
this section, shall maintain records containing the information as
required in this section. These records shall be retained for a period
of five years from the date of creation, and shall be delivered to the
Administrator of EPA or to the Administrator's authorized
representative upon request.
(a) All regulated parties. Any refiner, importer, oxygenate
blender, carrier, distributor, reseller, retailer, or wholesalepurchaser
who sells, offers for sale, dispenses, supplies, offers for
supply, stores, transports, or causes the transportation of any
reformulated gasoline or RBOB, shall maintain records containing the
following information:
(1) The product transfer documentation for all reformulated
gasoline or RBOB for which the party is the transferor or transferee;
and
(2) For any sampling and testing on RBOB or reformulated gasoline:
(i) The location, date, time, and storage tank or truck
identification for each sample collected;
(ii) The identification of the person who collected the sample and
(ii) The identity of each covered area which is supplied with any
reformulated gasoline or RBOB produced at the refinery or blending
facility or imported by the importer; and
(iii) The name, address, contact name and telephone number of the
independent laboratory used to meet the independent analysis
requirements of Sec. 80.65(f).
(d) EPA will supply a registration number to each refiner,
importer, and oxygenate blender, and a facility registration number for
each refinery and oxygenate blending facility that is identified, which
shall be used in all reports to the Administrator.
(e)(1) Any refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender shall submit
updated registration information to the Administrator within thirty
days of any occasion when the registration information previously
supplied becomes incomplete or inaccurate; except that
(2) EPA must be notified in writing of any change in designated
independent laboratory at least thirty days in advance of such change.
Sec. 80.77 Product transfer documentation.
On each occasion when any person transfers custody or title to any
reformulated gasoline or RBOB, other than when gasoline is sold or
dispensed for use in motor vehicles at a retail outlet or wholesale
purchaser-consumer facility, the transferor shall provide to the
transferee documents which include the following information:
(a) The name and address of the transferor;
(b) The name and address of the transferee;
(c) The volume of gasoline which is being transferred;
(d) The location of the gasoline at the time of the transfer;
(e) The date of the transfer;
(f) The proper identification of the gasoline as conventional or
reformulated;
(g) In the case of reformulated gasoline or RBOB:
(1) The proper identification as:
(i)(A) VOC-controlled for VOC-Control Region 1; or VOC-controlled
for VOC-Control Region 2; or Not VOC-controlled; or
(B) In the case of gasoline or RBOB that is VOC-controlled for VOCControl
Region 1, the gasoline may be identified as suitable for use
either in VOC-Control Region 1 or VOC-Control Region 2;
(ii) Oxygenated fuels program reformulated gasoline; or Not
oxygenated fuels program reformulated gasoline; and
(iii) Prior to January 1, 1998, certified under the simple model
Subpart E--Anti-Dumping
Sec. 80.90 Conventional gasoline baseline emissions determination.
(a) Annual average baseline values. For any facility of a refiner
or importer of conventional gasoline, the annual average baseline
values of the facility's exhaust benzene emissions, exhaust toxics
emissions, NO<INF>x emissions, sulfur, olefins and T90 shall be
determined using the following equation:
<GRAPHIC><TIF12>TR16FE94.012
where
BASELINE=annual average baseline value of the facility,
SUMRBASE=summer baseline value of the facility,
SUMRVOL=summer baseline gasoline volume of the facility, per
Sec. 80.91,
WNTRBASE=winter baseline value of the facility,
WNTRVOL=winter baseline gasoline volume of the facility, per
Sec. 80.91.
(b) Baseline exhaust benzene emissions--simple model. (1) Simple
model exhaust benzene emissions of conventional gasoline shall be
determined using the following equation:
EXHBEN=(1.884+0.949 x BX+0.113 x (AR-BZ))
where
EXHBEN=exhaust benzene emissions,
BZ=fuel benzene value in terms of volume percent (per Sec. 80.91), and
AR=fuel aromatics value in terms of volume percent (per Sec. 80.91).
(2) The simple model annual average baseline exhaust benzene
emissions for any facility of a refiner or importer of conventional
gasoline shall be determined as follows:
(i) The simple model baseline exhaust benzene emissions shall be
determined separately for summer and winter using the facility's
oxygenated individual baseline fuel parameter values for summer and
winter (per Sec. 80.91), respectively, in the equation specified in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(ii) The simple model annual average baseline exhaust benzene
emissions of the facility shall be determined using the emissions
gasoline.
(3) Method 3-type data. (i) Method 3-type data shall consist of
post-1990 gasoline blendstock and/or gasoline quality data and 1990
blendstock and gasoline production records, specifically the measured
fuel parameter values and volumes of blendstock used in the production
of gasoline within the refinery. Blendstock data shall include volumes
purchased or otherwise received, including intracompany transfers, if
the volumes were blended as part of the refiner's or importer's 1990
gasoline.
(ii) In order to use Method 3-type data, the refiner or importer
must do all of the following:
(A) Include a detailed discussion comparing its 1990 and post-1990
refinery operations and all other differences which would cause the
1990 and post-1990 fuel parameter values to differ; and
(B) Perform the appropriate calculations so as to adjust for the
differences determined in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) of this section; and
(C) Include a narrative, discussing the methodology and reasoning
for the adjustments made per paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B) of this section.
(iii) In order to use post-1990 gasoline data, either of the
following must be shown for each blendstock-type included in 1990
gasoline, excluding butane:
(A) The post-1990 volumetric fraction of a blendstock is within (+/
-)10.0 percent of the volumetric fraction of that blendstock in 1990
gasoline. For example, if a 1990 blendstock constituted 30 volume
percent of 1990 gasoline, this criterion would be met if the post-1990
volumetric fraction of the blendstock in post-1990 gasoline was 27.033.0 volume percent.
(B) The post-1990 volumetric fraction of a blendstock is within (+/
-)2.0 volume percent of the absolute value of the 1990 volumetric
fraction. For example, if a 1990 blendstock constituted 5 volume
percent of 1990 gasoline, this criterion would be met if the post-1990
volumetric fraction of the blendstock in post-1990 gasoline was 3-7
volume percent.
(iv) If using post-1990 gasoline data, post-1990 gasoline
blendstock which left a facility and which could become gasoline solely
upon the addition of oxygenate shall be included in the baseline
determination, per the requirements specified in paragraph (c)(1)(ii)
of this section.
(4) Hierarchy of data use. (i) A refiner or importer must determine
a baseline fuel parameter value using only Method 1-type data if
data.
(2) Sampling beyond today's date. The necessity and actual
occurrence of data collection after today's date must be shown.
(3) Negligible quantity sampling. Testing of a blendstock stream
for a fuel parameter listed in this paragraph (d)(3) is not required if
the refiner can show that the fuel parameter exists in the stream at
less than or equal to the amount, on average, shown in this paragraph
(d)(3) for that fuel parameter. Any fuel parameter shown to exist in a
refinery stream in negligible amounts shall be assigned a value of 0.0:
Aromatics, volume percent--1.0
Benzene, volume percent--0.15
Olefins, volume percent--1.0
Oxygen, weight percent--0.2
Sulfur, ppm--30.0
(4) Sample compositing. (i) Samples of gasoline or blendstock which
have been retained, but not analyzed, may be mixed prior to analysis
and analyzed, as described in paragraphs (d)(4)(iii) (A) through (H) of
this section, for the required fuel parameters. Samples must be from
the same season and year and must be of a single grade or of a single
type of batch-produced blendstock.
(ii) Blendstock samples of a single blendstock type obtained from
continuous processes over a calendar month may be mixed together in
equal volumes to form one blendstock sample and the sample subsequently
analyzed for the required fuel parameters.
(iii)(A) Samples shall have been collected and stored per the
method normally employed at the refinery in order to prevent change in
product composition with regard to baseline properties and to minimize
loss of volatile fractions of the sample.
(B) Properties of the retained samples shall be adjusted for loss
of butane by comparing the RVP measured right after blending with the
RVP determined at the time that the supplemental properties are
measured.
(C) The volume of each batch or shipment sampled shall have been
noted and the sum of the volumes calculated to the nearest hundred
(100) barrels.
(D) For each batch or shipment sampled, the ratio of its volume to
the total volume determined in paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(C) of this section
j
p<INF>js=number of samples of post-1990 season s batch-produced
blendstock j
V<INF>ijs=volume of post-1990 batch of sample i of season s blendstock
j
SG<INF>ijs=specific gravity of sample i of season s blendstock j (used
only for fuel parameters measured on a weight basis)
(B) Post-1990 gasoline. Summer and winter Method 3-type gasoline
data, per paragraph (c)(3) of this section, shall be evaluated
separately according to the following equation:
<GRAPHIC><TIF16>TR16FE94.016
where:
X<INF>bs=Summer or winter baseline value of fuel parameter X for the
refinery
s=season, summer or winter, per paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A)(1) of this
section
g=separate grade of season s gasoline produced by the refinery in 1990
p<INF>s=total number of different grades of season s gasoline produced
by the refinery in 1990
T<INF>gs=total volume of season s grade g gasoline produced in 1990
N<INF>s=total volume of season s gasoline produced by the refinery in
1990
i=separate batch or shipment of post-1990 season s gasoline sampled
n<INF>gs=total number of samples of post-1990 season s grade g gasoline
X<INF>gis=parameter value of post-1990 grade g season s gasoline sample
i
V<INF>gis=volume of post-1990 season s grade g gasoline sample i
SG<INF>gis=specific gravity of post-1990 season s grade g gasoline
sample i (used only for fuel parameters measured on a weight basis)
(3) Percent evaporated determination. (i) Baseline E200 and E300
values shall be determined directly from actual measurement data.
(ii) If the data per paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section are
unavailable, upon petition and approval, baseline E200 and E300 values
shall be determined from the following equations using the baseline T50
and T90 values, if the baseline T50 and T90 values are otherwise
acceptable:
E200=147.91-(0.49 x T50)
E300=155.47-(0.22 x T90)
(4) Oxygen in the baseline. Baseline fuel parameter values shall be
determined on both an oxygenated and non-oxygenated basis.
(i) If baseline values are determined first on an oxygenated
basis, per paragraph (e) of this section, the calculations in
paragraphs (e)(4)(i) (A) through (C) of this section shall be performed
to determine the value of each baseline parameter on a non-oxygenated
basis.
(A) Benzene, aromatic, olefin and sulfur content shall be
determined on a non-oxygenated basis according to the following
equation:
<GRAPHIC><TIF17>TR16FE94.017
where
UV=non-oxygenated parameter value
AV=oxygenated parameter value
OV=1990 oxygenate volume as a percent of total production
(B) Reid vapor pressure (RVP) shall be determined on a nonoxygenated
basis according to the following equation:
<GRAPHIC><TIF18>TR16FE94.018
where
UR=non-oxygenated RVP (baseline value)
BR=oxygenated RVP
i=type of oxygenate used in 1990
n=total number of different types of oxygenates used in 1990
OV<INF>i=1990 volume, as a percent of total production, of oxygenate i
OR<INF>i=blending RVP of oxygenate i
(C) Test data and engineering judgement shall be used to estimate
T90, T50, E300 and E200 baseline values on a non-oxygenated basis.
shall:
(i) Have received more than one quarter of its revenue from the
refiner or importer during the year prior to the date of hire of the
auditor by the refiner or importer for auditing purposes. Income
received from the refiner or importer to develop the baseline being
audited is excepted; nor
(ii) Have a total of more than 10 percent of its net worth with the
refiner or importer; nor
(iii) Receive compensation for the audit which is dependent on the
outcome of the audit.
(c) Technical ability. All of the following criteria must be met by
the auditor in order to demonstrate its technical capability to perform
the baseline audit:
(1) The auditor shall be technically capable of evaluating a
baseline determination. It shall have personnel familiar with petroleum
refining processes, including associated computational procedures,
methods of product analysis and economics, and expertise in conducting
the auditing process, including skills for effective data gathering and
analysis.
(2) The primary analyst must understand all technical details of
the entire baseline audit process.
(3)(i) The primary analyst shall have worked at least five (5)
years in either refinery operations or as a consultant for the refining
industry.
(ii) If one or more computer models designed for refinery planning
and/or economic analysis are used in the verification of an individual
baseline, the primary analyst must have at least three (3) years
experience working with the model(s) utilized in the verification.
(iii) EPA may, upon petition, waive one or more of the requirements
specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section if the technical
capability of the primary analyst is demonstrated to the satisfaction
of the Director of the Office of Mobile Sources, or designee.
(d) Auditor qualification statement. A statement documenting the
qualifications of the auditor, primary analyst(s), contractors,
subcontractors and their organizations must be submitted to EPA (Fuel
Studies and Standards Branch, Baseline Auditor, U.S. EPA, 2565 Plymouth
Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48105).
(1) Timing. (i) The auditor qualification statement may be
(B) Each type of blendstock used in 1990 gasoline and total number
of blendstocks. Include all blendstocks produced, purchased or
otherwise received which were blended to produce gasoline within the
facility. Identify all blendstocks not produced in the facility but
used in the facility's 1990 gasoline;
(C) Total volume of each blendstock used in gasoline in 1990;
(D) Identification of post-1990 blendstock streams as batch or
continuous;
(E) Number of post-1990 blendstock samples from continuous
blendstock streams;
(F) Number of post-1990 blendstock samples from batch processes,
including volume of each batch sampled; and
(G) Baseline fuel parameter value, per Sec. 80.91; and
(iii) Support documentation showing that the criteria of Sec. 80.91
for using Method 3-type blendstock data are met.
(6) Method 3, post-1990 gasoline data. The following information on
post-1990 batches of gasoline, or shipments if not batch blended, are
required by grade:
(i) First and last sampling dates;
(ii) The following shall be indicated separately for summer and
winter production, by month:
(A) Number of post-1990 months sampled;
(B) Number of post-1990 batches, or shipments if not batch blended;
(C) Total volume of all post-1990 batches or shipments;
(D) Number of post-1990 batches or shipments sampled;
(E) Volume of each post-1990 batch or shipment sampled; and
(F) Baseline fuel parameter value, per Sec. 80.91; and
(iii) Support documentation showing that the criteria of Sec. 80.91
for using post-1990 gasoline data are met.
(7) Work-in-progress (WIP). All of the following must be included
in support of a WIP adjustment (per Sec. 80.91(e)(5)):
(i) Petition including identification of the specific baseline
emission(s) or parameter for which the WIP adjustment is desired;
(ii) Showing that all WIP criteria, per Sec. 80.91(e)(5), are met;
(iii) Unadjusted and adjusted baseline fuel parameters, emissions
and volume for the facility; and
(iv) Narrative, per Sec. 80.91 (e)(5).
(8) Extenuating circumstances. All of the following must be
included in support of an extenuating circumstance adjustment (per
Sec. 80.91 (e)(6) through (e)(7)):
<GRAPHIC><TIF25>TR16FE94.025
Where:
BGC<INF>base=Baseline cumulative blendstock-to-gasoline ratio
V<INF>bs, i=Volume of applicable blendstock produced or imported and
transferred to others during calendar year i
V<INF>g, i=Volume of gasoline produced or imported during calendar year
i
i=each year, 1990 through 1993, for which a blendstock-to-gasoline
ratio is calculated under paragraph (b) of this section
(d)(1) For each averaging period, any refiner or importer shall:
(i) Determine the averaging period blendstock-to-gasoline ratio
according to the following formula:
<GRAPHIC><TIF26>TR16FE94.026
Where:
BG<INF>a=Blendstock-to-gasoline ratio for the current averaging period
V<INF>bs=Volume of applicable blendstock produced or imported during
the averaging period and subsequently transferred to others
V<INF>g=Volume of conventional gasoline, reformulated gasoline, and
RBOB produced or imported during the averaging period
(ii) For each averaging period until January 1, 1998, calculate the
peak year blendstock-to-gasoline ratio percentage change according to
the following formula:
<GRAPHIC><TIF27>TR16FE94.027
Where:
PC<INF>p=Peak year blendstock-to-gasoline ratio percentage change
BG<INF>a=Blendstock-to-gasoline ratio for the averaging period
calculated under paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section
BG<INF>p=Largest one year blendstock-to-gasoline ratio calculated under
paragraph (b) of this section
(2) Beginning on January 1, 1998, for each averaging period any
refiner or importer shall:
(i) Determine the running cumulative compliance period blendstockto
-gasoline ratio according to the following formula:
<GRAPHIC><TIF28>TR16FE94.028
Where:
BGC<INF>comp=Running cumulative compliance period blendstock-togasoline
ratio
V<INF>bs, i=Volume of applicable blendstock produced or imported and
transferred to others during averaging period i
V<INF>g, i=Volume of conventional gasoline, reformulated gasoline, and
RBOB produced or imported during averaging period i
i=The current averaging period, and each of the three immediately
preceding averaging periods
(ii) Calculate the cumulative blendstock-to-gasoline ratio
percentage change according to the following formula:
<GRAPHIC><TIF29>TR16FE94.029
Where:
PC<INF>c=Cumulative blendstock-to-gasoline ratio percentage change
BGC<INF>comp=Running cumulative compliance period blendstock-togasoline
ratio as determined in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section
BGC<INF>base=Baseline cumulative blendstock-to-gasoline ratio
calculated under paragraph (c) of this section
(3) For purposes of this paragraph (d), all applicable blendstocks
produced or imported shall be included, except those for which the
refiner or importer has sufficient evidence in the form of
documentation that the blendstocks were:
(i) Exported;
(ii) Used for other than gasoline blending purposes;
(iii) Transferred to a refiner that used the blendstock as a
``feedstock'' in a refining process during which the blendstock
underwent a substantial chemical or physical transformation; or
(iv) Transferred between refineries which have been grouped
pursuant to Sec. 80.101(h) by a refiner for the purpose of determining
compliance under this subpart.
(e)(1) Any refiner or importer shall have exceeded the blendstockto
-gasoline ratio percentage change threshold if:
(i) The peak year blendstock-to-gasoline ratio percentage change
calculated under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section is more than ten;
or
66 and larger...................... 29
41-65.............................. 25
26-40.............................. 20
Sample size
(2) Option 2. Determine the sample size in such a manner that the
sample size is equal to that which would result by using the following
parameters and standard statistical methodologies:
Confidence Level--95%
Expected Error Rate--0%
Maximum Tolerable Error Rate--10%
(3) Option 3. The auditor may use some other form of sample
selection and/or some other method to determine the sample size,
provided that the resulting sample affords equal or better strength of
inference and freedom from bias (as compared with paragraphs (b)(1) and
(2) of this section), and that the auditor summarizes the substitute
methods and clearly demonstrates their equivalence in the final report
on the audit.
Sec. 80.128 Agreed upon procedures for refiners and importers.
The following are the minimum attest procedures that shall be
carried out for each refinery and importer. Agreed upon procedures may
vary from the procedures stated in this section due to the nature of
the refiner's or importer's business or records, provided that any
refiner or importer desiring to modify procedures obtains prior
approval from EPA.
(a) Read the refiner's or importer's reports filed with EPA for the
previous year as required by Secs. 80.75 and 80.105.
(b) Obtain a gasoline inventory reconciliation analysis for the
current year from the refiner or importer which includes reformulated
gasoline, RBOB, conventional gasoline, and non-finished-gasoline
petroleum products.
(1) Test the mathematical accuracy of the calculations contained in
the analysis.
(2) Agree the beginning and ending inventories to the refiner's or
importer's perpetual inventory records.
(c) Obtain separate listings of all tenders during the current year
of reformulated gasoline, RBOB, conventional gasoline, and nonfinished
-gasoline petroleum products.